Ayn Rand: The Boring Bitch is Back
There is a substantial take-down of pedantic bore Ayn Rand in GQ. They tease it thusly:
2009′s most influential author is a mirthless Russian-American who loves money, hates God, and swings a gigantic dick. She died in 1982, but her spawn soldier on. And the Great Recession is all their fault.
I love that because it is both funny and touches upon so many subtle truths; Here is a longer, funnier excerpt:
“This is because there are boys and girls among us who have never overcome the Randian infection. The Galt speech continues to ring in their ears for years like a maddening tinnitus, turning each of them into what next year’s Physicians’ Desk Reference will (undoubtedly) term an Ayn Rand Asshole (ARA). They constitute a relatively small percentage of Rand readers, these ARAs. But they make their reading count. Thanks to them, the Rand Experience is no longer limited to those who have read the books. It’s metastasized. You, me, all of us, we’re living it. Because it’s the ARA Army of antigovernment-antiregulation puritans who have spent the past three decades gleefully pulling the cooling rods out of the American economy. For a while, it got very big and very hot. Then it popped. And now the rest of us have to spend the next decade scaling the slippery slopes of the huge suppurative crater that was left behind.
Feeling fisted by the Invisible Hand of the Market lo these past fifteen months? Lost a job lately? Or half the value of your 401(k)? Or a home? All three? Been wondering whence the too-long-ascendant political and economic ideas and forces behind Greenspanism, John Thainism, blind Wall Street plunder, bankruptcy, credit-default swaps, Bernie Madoff, and the ensuing Cannibalism in the Streets? Then you, sir, need to give thanks to Ayn Rand Assholes everywhere—as well as the steely loins from which they sprang.”
Brilliant.
I haven’t read Rand’s work for decades, but I do recall two things: A) It was a giant pedantic bore; 2) Debating it with people in College was always a hoot. The thing that struck me most was the lack of rigor in the arguments — it was more religion than logic, more wishful thinking than reality based observations of how humans actually behave.
You can the concentration of ARAs in a certain groupings. These are the folks who blame the CRA for the collapse of the economy; ARAs tend to be hardcore idealogues; many are rabidly partisan. All too many are deeply uninformed. They breathje co0gnitive dissonance they most people breathe oxygen. When confronted with facts, data, reality that challenge their ideology, they make up new facts.
I imagine that Freud would bluntly use Randian logic to note they inhabit a guise of superiority in part to compensate for vast and deeply felt inferiorities and insecurities. That’s right, those of you who feel compelled to talk about how big your junk is are typically are sporting selections from the wee person’s aisle.
Malcolm Gladwell is a guy who knows how to write compellingly readable stories. The takeaway in his book Outliers The Story of Success is quite unRandian — it is that luck plays an enormous factor in out-sized success. That is a factor the Randians prefer to ignore.
What I find so weird about Rand is that there are more than a few people I respect who gobbled up her work. These are not ARAs — but are otherwise rational folks who never quite went full tilt into ARA-hood. But they have a huge respect for her work. Me? I prefer “lessers” like Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson and John Maynard Keynes. I prefer John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle of Liberty over Rand’s Objectivism.
Dangerous Minds contextualizes the pedantic bore portion of the Rand legend:
“It’s Rand’s dialogue that seals her reputation as an author you just can’t take seriously. To be fair, she was writing in her second language, but the problem with her books is that no one actually speaks to one another, they just make speeches at each other. Hectoring, long-winded speeches. It’s fine to read stuff like that as a teenager, but when I crack open one of her books today, I shake my head in disbelief at how bombastic and horrible her writing is.”
Bombastic and horrible? You are being too kind . . .
My actual problem with Rand — behind her blindingly horrific prose — is that she was pushing back against a totalitarian system in the Soviet Union, a corrupt and morally indefensible system she had every right to be infuriated by. But she applies that righteous fury and outrage to a Democracy, whose economy is Free Market based. Hence, rather than challenging the politburo, she challenges Unions. Cooperative behavior seems to be hard for her to grasp. One suspects she would have disliked Consumer Reports, or Zagats, or Amazon’s user ratings.
Worst of all, Rand’s Objectivism has become the rationale for all manner of morally repugnant behaviour. However, I did take one personal lesson from Atlas Shrugged to heart: Anytime I see a parked car with a John Galt bumper sticker, I like to knock off one of the sideview mirrors, and leave it on the hood. I include a note stating my selfish, random act made me feel good, and therefore should be a perfectly fine act in their world.
I assume the recipients miss the irony . . .
>
Sources:
The Bitch is Back
Andrew Corsello
GQ, October 27, 2009
http://www.gq.com/entertainment/books/200911/ayn-rand-dick-books-fountainhead
Ayn Rand Assholes
Dangerous Minds, 11.11.2009
http://www.dangerousminds.net/index.php/site/comments/ayn_rand_assholes/
De.li.cious
Digg this!
Technorati
Reddit
Newsvine
Stumble
Facebook
November 15th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Eric Hoffer, who spent his lifetime studying mass movements, very aptly observed: “Add a few drops of venom to a half truth and you have an absolute truth
November 15th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
11/16/09 10:21pm
Geez, I really need a “Sarcasm” font.
Way too many of you people took the mirror comments literally . . .
November 15th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Next book will be titled…. ” Alan Shrugged” ?
November 15th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
I’m not a Rand fanbois and actually have read much of her stuff (and certainly not for quite some time) but one thing I would give Rand credit for is the notion of Productive People vs Non Productive people and, in Shrugged, the Productive people essentially opting out of carrying the lazy along.
When W came into office i 2000, 33% of tax filers were not paying federal income tax. When he left last year, it 39%. It appears under O, this number will get close to 50% in short order. What happens to a society when 60% are getting a free ride? 70%? Would they continue to vote for a system that rewards them and punishes the top 30-40%? We have a generation that is used to free music downloads and free movie downloads—who will make the music or movies in 20 years, and will it be any good? Will we enjoy seeing Batman 8 or Saw 22 since they are less risky to make than an interesting, new, novel concept? Steven Soderbergh remarked last week that a movie like The Matrix would never get made today—like Matrix or not, it was a game changer at the time. (although I wish Matrix 2 or 3 hadn’t been made…)
What happens if the US gets “used to” 10-12% unemployement like what plagues Europe and worse, Spain. Are we comfortable with permanent 10% U3 and 15-20% U6?
I do know that if government running things was so great, then we should just go for 100% taxes on everything and let the government handle things for us.
Rand may still be a bitch.
~~~
BR: Put the numbers into context: The labor pool is 143 million people, out of a population of 308 million.
The nature of our society of hunters, gatherers, and nesters is that many people — about half — do not work. They are either children, or stay at home moms, or retired.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
posted on this same article recently, ended up with a comments thread loaded with invective, neofascism, elitist ramblings and outright hatred.
the cult will show up spittin’ mad in this comments section too, beware br! lol
November 15th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
KORT, oddly enough we are the ones with the high UE now. with a few exceptions, the EU is much better off than the US is.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
@Kurt
Are you saying there is such a thing as lazy and unproductive people? People who will vote for politicians to plunder the productive for their own benefit? Well, I have to question the rigor 9r your arguments — it sounds more like a religion than logic, more wishful thinking than reality based observations of how humans actually behave.
You mean there are large number of humans who prefer to ride in the wagon even when they see others struggling to pull it? Nah! You’re observations of how humans behave must somehow be wrong.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Fun read…thanks
November 15th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Exactly which free market policies of Greenspan are at fault for our current dire economic situation.? None. Greenspan gave up the free market system when he became chairman of The Fed. The Federal Reserve is inherently anti-free market with its bureaucratic manipulation of interest rates and currency values. Not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which destabilized the housing market. i cannot think of two organizations which less exemplify the ideas of Ayn Rand.
~~~
BR: And exactly how did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “destabilize” the housing market ?
November 15th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Never was a Robert Heinlein fan for similar reasons. The movie of “Starship Troopers” had fun camping up a fascistic/elitist theme that Heinlein actually believed in when he wrote it.
“The Fountainhead” was so painful to get through that I never read any more of her shit writing after that.
Going to have to agree that anyone that likes Rand has a tin ear for literature and dialogue.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Is “kort” Russian for troll?
November 15th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
“…but one thing I would give Rand credit for is the notion of Productive People vs Non Productive people and, in Shrugged, the Productive people essentially opting out of carrying the lazy along…”
Kort,
but, we Know that isn’t happening here: “a Democracy, whose economy is Free Market based.”
wherever that is…
“For years the satellite-spy-industry has flourished as a result of the “cold-war-fever” that plagued the United States and the Soviet Union: Extremely sensitive American and Soviet satellites have been orbiting the Earth with military objectives for years.
Today a complex “civilian” spy network has nurtured with roots in the U.S. government structure and scientific community. The use of satellites, government bureaus and their corporate counterparts, are a far more efficient tool for resource exploitation and social control.
The use of aerial photography and satellite imagery in the decision-making processes of local, state, and federal government is widespread. A spin-off from years of military development and space-age computerization, it is now apparent that individual collective privacy is being threatened from sources unseen.
State governments usually use aerial photography and satellite imagery for road and highway planning as well as floodplain mapping. The infamous U-2 is being used in California for a variety of purposes. Local governments have used remote-sensing technology for tax assessment purposes and land ownership….”
http://www.projectcensored.org/static/1977/1977-story25.htm
http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html
where, exactly, is this “a Democracy, whose economy is Free Market based.”-Fantasia?
“Rand may still be a bitch.”, No Doubt.
But, I was under the impression that True Premises were a necessity of Valid arguments..
As always, I may be wrong, though, I’d like to learn ‘the right answer’..
And, if it helps, ‘Rand fanbois’ are, indeed, a pathetic lot, but, less pathetic than those that use Rand as a stand-in for those that believe that “Socialism Can’t Calculate”.
http://www.reasonforliberty.com/reason/socialism-cant-calculate.html
November 15th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I was sent a copy of Atlas Shrugged by a friend of mine who insisted that I read it. I am 1/4 of the way done and while I must admit a lot of what Barry wrote about has merit, let’s be objective here. The writing occurred in the mid 1950′s. It was a different world back then. A few lessons in the book still are relevant, but shouldn’t the book be judged by its time period FIRST?
Second of all, doesn’t it say something about the book that there is no other piece of fiction that speaks of today’s times in business the way that AS did for its era? I mean, what is the seminal piece of business fiction literature right now (spare the “Enron’s quarterly report” jokes!).
So far, my opinion of the book is that it is ok by today’s standards, pretty good by 1950′s standards. And hey, they are making it into a movie, in which Dagny Taggart will be played by Angelina Jolie in 2010 from what I read some time ago. And that makes it worthwhile to me :-)
November 15th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Atlas Shrugged plays to the considerable egos of men/women of wealth and power. No idea is more pleasing to the rich and elite than the idea that they are inherently smarter and well prepared than the common man. Luck never enters the equation. They blame poor people for not being educated enough, or not working hard enough.
It’s disgustingly used as a rationalization for their greedy, society-destroying behavior.
Let’s put the captains of industry on a desert island and see how they fare.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I always think it’s cute when a new randian tells me how much they enjoy reading “Ann” Rand.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
@investorinpa:
If you want a reading list of stuff written in the 50s and earlier that shows Rand to be the hack she was, I’m happy to provide one. ;-)
~~~
BR: Hit me!
November 15th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
What Reformed Broker said — we are probably going to be up to our ears in madly oscillating ARA’s pretty soon — but man it was worth it for the excerpt alone and the links, the links: You’re aces in my household BR (or was that asses, oh well, you get it).
Here’s a link in return, not nearly as fun though: http://tinyurl.com/ycrkvyg
Can’t even get a direct jobs bill off the ground in this poisoned political climate much less get it passed/signed into law. What a stinking mess.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
@investorinpa:
Yes, look at the trash her contemporaries were producing….Lolita, The Adventures of Augie March, the Naked and the Dead, Lord of the Flies, Catcher in the Rye, etc. etc. Oh, and a little novelized response to totalitarianism called 1984. But yes, for penis imagery and rape fantasies, she was without peer.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Love it! Great job, Barry!
November 15th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
In our Christian culture, Rand’s insight that organizes human interaction into traders vs looters is an oasis in a dry desert.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Kort,
“When W came into office i 2000, 33% of tax filers were not paying federal income tax. When he left last year, it 39%. It appears under O, this number will get close to 50% in short order. What happens to a society when 60% are getting a free ride? 70%?”
Eh, when the federal income tax was originally enacted, it only applied to taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000, with less than 1% of the population paying it. That means more than 99% of the population was exempt.
We prospered.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Rand resonates because of these principles: 1. An individual’s life belongs to himself. 2. Physical forces is not a proper way to deal with others. 3. The proper purpose of government is to protect individuals from force or fraud. Are these the principles of “assholes” or immature undergraduates? I think not.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
“Feeling fisted by the Invisible Hand of the Market lo these past fifteen months? Lost a job lately? Or half the value of your 401(k)? Or a home? All three? Been wondering whence the too-long-ascendant political and economic ideas and forces behind Greenspanism, John Thainism, blind Wall Street plunder, bankruptcy, credit-default swaps, Bernie Madoff, and the ensuing Cannibalism in the Streets? Then you, sir, need to give thanks to Ayn Rand Assholes everywhere—as well as the steely loins from which they sprang.” ”
That was one high-quality rant! (I’m jealous as all get out.)
November 15th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Kort,
You say, “…When W came into office i 2000, 33% of tax filers were not paying federal income tax…”
But you’re falling for the slippery GOP “Not paying Federal income tax” talking point. Key slip: “income tax.” The GOP talking point (run endless in WSJ etc) aren’t including all the other non-income yet income-based taxes, like SS, Medicare etc… More people (two-thirds) pay more in Social Security taxes than income taxes…
http://www.urban.org/publications/1001065.html
…which is used to cover the deficit interestingly enough, ever since Reagan raised Social security taxes.
Objectivism is dead meat, why? Who’s buying all the stuff you sell Superman?
November 15th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
i was too interested surfing (as in waves) and chasing the beach girls down in So Fl as a kid to read very much…so, i did not come across Ayn Rand until after college…i drank the kool aid (of her philosophy).
i was in a meeting once, circa 1979, while working for a major oil company that also had a bunch of coast guard guys in attendance. we were trying to get the deepwater oil bidness going, and being an ocean engineer, i was interested in designing and building the floating platforms that would provide the surface “real estate” to allow these types of projects to be realized.
there were few codified engineering practices that covered what we were trying to do since their was no precedents. there were federal rules and regulations primarily pertaining to safety of life at sea and the USCG guys were spewing off about CFR 1.2.3, and Regulations 4.3.2 section 4 pp 15 or whatever – stuff i had not even heard about, but they did this with bureaucratic, self righteous fervor.
finally, this newly converted ARA could not take it anymore, and, to the horror of the company’s regulatory affairs representative, I stood up in the meeting and said that these guys (the Coast Guard dudes) were “like leaches on the backs of productive members of society, growing like a cancer….”
…the kool aid has long since been pissed out of my system……what a flashback…..i enjoyed the send up
November 15th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
And speaking of female darlings of the right… Would love to barista for the Sec. of State, Yale Law grad and the new female darling of the right…
Clinton: Happy To Talk To Palin Over Coffee
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/15/clinton-happy-to-talk-to-_n_358277.html
Maybe Palin will affix a school of “thought” to her philosophy like the Russian, Rand, did… Quitism?
November 15th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Yes, Rand’s writing is useless both as literature and as philosophy, although valuable as compost. But, I knew that when I was 19. I have no idea why Corsello thinks “recovering” from Rand is so difficult; I “got done” with her the moment I got done slogging through her dreadful prose, if not well before. As for blaming all our economic woes on Rand’s odiferous blast radius, let’s not overstate the case. The very fact that these people gulped down that load of codswallop and then kept it down was a pretty good indication of where they were headed—and with what limitations of character and intellect—anyway.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
wow. now HERE is an interesting thread.
Kort wrote:
“one thing I would give Rand credit for is the notion of Productive People vs Non Productive people and, in Shrugged, the Productive people essentially opting out of carrying the lazy along”
for me, that’s the crux of it – maybe you can change the word “lazy” – but it’s about what we all think are basic human rights. While most agree on shelter and food, we can’t even find a way to agree on healthcare, never mind cheap rail transport and its offshoots (Atlas Shrugged)
I am just finishing Atlas Shrugged for the first time, and it’s a remarkable time in history to be reading the book, as it seems life is imitating art. Our policy solutions to close revenue gaps feel to be largely to increase taxes on the wealthy. That’s all fine and dandy until the wealthy go John Gault and leave the system.
Now, lest someone accuse me of being some naive Rand idealist – the reason this concept hit me so hard is that I felt it before I read the book. I quit my job in late 2007 because for me the equation no longer worked – that of giving 50%+ of my earnings to the system. So now, instead of getting a crapton of money from me in taxes, the system will get nothing. The notion that high earners have a breaking point is not just a Rand fantasy – at least for me it wasn’t.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
ps – Barry – I don’t think the philosophy of Atlas Shrugged and John Galt was that anything that makes you feel good is ok… I think it was that there is no “owe” – there is no “deserve.” You have to EARN everything.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Wasn’t Ayn Rand also the Lady in the Lake who gave Sir Alan his baton and turned him into The Maestro and who was later burned at the stake for turning Sir Gingrich into a Newt and weighing the same as a duck?
November 15th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
…that’d be her, Winston
November 15th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Would they continue to vote for a system that rewards them and punishes the top 30-40%?
——–
Another error in logic. Why do you assume that the 30-40% are morally superior? Is that 30-40% more productive or just plain lucky?
Maybe a huge % of that 30-40% deserves to pay for the rest. Seems to me there is a nice % ot those who are overpaid bureaucrats. I’m not saying that all bureaucrats are unproductive, I’m just saying there’s alittle too much self-righteousness going on out there.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
“Feeling fisted by the Invisible Hand of the Market lo these past fifteen months? Lost a job lately? Or half the value of your 401(k)? Or a home? All three? Been wondering whence the too-long-ascendant political and economic ideas and forces behind Greenspanism, John Thainism, blind Wall Street plunder, bankruptcy, credit-default swaps, Bernie Madoff, and the ensuing Cannibalism in the Streets? Then you, sir, need to give thanks to Ayn Rand Assholes everywhere—as well as the steely loins from which they sprang.”
BS. A lot of things mentioned happened in 30′s, too. I don’t think Randism was so popular back then.
Blaming Rand for today’s problems is like blaming fish for low water levels. It lacks of perspective and ignores all the reality. Not a Randian myself. Never finished a book of her, found to be too long and boring but I get the gist of it.
Excellent summary, Craiggan! A+
November 15th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
1. An individual’s life belongs to himself. 2. Physical forces is not a proper way to deal with others. 3. The proper purpose of government is to protect individuals from force or fraud. Are these the principles of “assholes” or immature undergraduates? I think not.
————-
Socipath could not care less about those assumed “rights” and research has shown that both the political and business worlds are run by a slew of them.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Now, lest someone accuse me of being some naive Rand idealist – the reason this concept hit me so hard is that I felt it before I read the book. I quit my job in late 2007 because for me the equation no longer worked – that of giving 50%+ of my earnings to the system. So now, instead of getting a crapton of money from me in taxes, the system will get nothing. The notion that high earners have a breaking point is not just a Rand fantasy – at least for me it wasn’t
————-
Considering that over 75-80% of America’s wealth is in the hands of the 55+, it’ll be interesting to see how the younger generation reacts when the retirees don’t want to share.
Not many people realize that our worker to dependant ratio just peaked in the last couple of years and will only go down. It’s demographics pure and simple.
So either the wealth gets even more concentrated (Banana republic) or gets redistributed (socialism).
Something tellls me the older folk are going to complain so the sharing will get ugly.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
KidDynamite : ” I am just finishing Atlas Shrugged for the first time, and it’s a remarkable time in history to be reading the book, as it seems life is imitating art. Our policy solutions to close revenue gaps feel to be largely to increase taxes on the wealthy. That’s all fine and dandy until the wealthy go John Gault and leave the system.”
I agree with the kid. Seems to me that many New Yorkers are leaving the state because of high taxes;
http://www.huliq.com/8738/88168/new-yorkers-flee-states-high-taxes-poorer-newcomers-replace-them
I would assume this is also happening in California, Chicago, etc. Forgive the kid and I if we tire of working harder simply to see more of our monies being taxed and then given to those that do not. And the earlier comment from Kort about the fact that soon 50% (of INCOME TAX FILERS – NOT children, etc.) will not be paying INCOME TAXES (yes, not FICA, etc.) means that you have an increasing number of people that are DEPENDENT on the system and a fewer number of people that are CONTRIBUTING TO the system. This does not seem to be a difficult problem to grasp. And quite frankly, if this is what Ms. Rand was saying and bitchin about, then I would have to agree with her.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
You are kidding?
~~~
BR: Only a little . . .
November 15th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Barry,
I’ll just stick with American lit that people other than pretentious English majors can actually enjoy in 2009:
Huckleberry Finn (1884!), Grapes of Wrath, A Streetcar Named Desire, Death of a Salesman. Great Gatsby. And since Atlas is going to be a movie, let’s see how the dialogue stacks up against Casablanca.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I’m hoping this entire post is some sort of joke. Honestly I just lost a lot of respect for you Barry.
Worst of all, Rand’s Objectivism has become the rationale for all manner of morally repugnant behaviour. However, I did take one personal lesson from Atlas Shrugged to heart: Anytime I see a parked car with a John Galt bumper sticker, I like to knock off one of the sideview mirrors, and leave it on the hood. I include a note stating my selfish, random act made me feel good, and therefore should be a perfectly fine act in their world.
I assume the recipients miss the irony . . .
Could you explain the irony for those of us that are too dense? Because to me the above makes me wonder if you have even read Atlas Shrugged. Like many others you appear to be simply reacting to the loaded word “selfish”.
~~~
BR: 1) Dont be so literal;
2) The reaction isn’t to Rand’s words, it is to the people who so blindly embraced those words
November 15th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Kid Dynamite writes: “I quit my job in late 2007 because for me the equation no longer worked – that of giving 50%+ of my earnings to the system. So now, instead of getting a crapton of money from me in taxes, the system will get nothing. The notion that high earners have a breaking point is not just a Rand fantasy – at least for me it wasn’t.”
Dear Kid: Enjoy your sabbatical. I doubt that the world has missed your contributions. If you were performing a useful function I’m sure there will be someone who feels less wronged and will step in to fill your shoes. Ultimately you are like me and others who read and commemt on this blog. You’re only labor. You’re replaceable.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
To me, Ayn Rand’s writing represents a continuation of Nietzche’s ideal of the enlightened individual breaking free of the restraints placed on him by society and achieving the ultimate freedom of being able to shape his own environment in whatever way he chooses. Finding meaning in this world then becomes up to the individual and not restricted to what’s acceptable to society. This is both freeing and disconcerting because it implies that there is no common “touchstone” from which everyone will necessarily agree upon, e.g religion, etc. and find common values. Rand’s ideas support the very core philosophy of individualism we see today in this country. Like all good ideas, they are very easily misinterpreted by their followers or taken too far.
~~~
BR: The difference being that Nietzche is relatively readable . . .
November 15th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
The bottom 90% of the income distribution may be currently engaged — unknowingly — in a version of ” going Galt ” , as they cut up their credit cards and refuse to continue working two or three jobs to eke out some degraded counterfeit of ‘ The American Dream’ , and instead resign themselves to the fate Rand would say they’ve deserved all along — subsistence living. No electronic gadgets , vacations , health insurance , restaurant meals , just the basics. Thus trashing the U.S. economy.
It would be poetic justice if the working class decimated the Randian’s huge accumulations of wealth by using her own techniques , even if they didn’t realize it.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Rupert Murdoch is far more toxic than Rand and, nowadays, far more influential through his editorial control of the WSJ, Fox Network, and dozens of other large media operations.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I’m in full agreement with the Kid as well. I will add that if tax rates go above 50%, I have an incentive to take not only my productive labor out of the system, I will pull my borrowed capital as well. Here’s a perfect example: the proposed limitation on mortgage interest deductability. If Mr O decides that the “wealthy” don’t deserve a full deduction of their interest, then that raises my after-tax cost substantially, particularly in the 50%+ tax rate world. My response? If and when, I plan to sell US stocks from my savings accounts and pay off the mortgage. This isn’t me being an Ayn Randian jerk – it’s me looking at the numbers and seeing a disincentive to be invested in America when the hurdle rate just rose. So the bank gets its money back (reduced multiplier) and stocks are sold (less capital in the system). On the margin, my decision means little. But if more people start to think this way….
November 15th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
The graveyards are full of indispensable people. Similarly, others will step up to take the jobs vacated by Kid and others who “have enough” to exit the system from which they’ve already profited so handsomely.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
At the same time, as we raise taxes, I can only hope that and encourage a lot of amoral scumbags in the FIRE economy to “go Galt”. By all means!
And who will continue taking high pressure jobs for less money? Maybe those who are motivated by more than just numero uno.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Although I know that people are tax averse and will walk away in the name of tax arbitrage there is still an irrefutable fact out there…
75-80% of the wealth is owned by 55+.
So either the concentration of welath increases and the US goes Banana republic or the wealth gets redistributed and the US goes more sociali*t.
I know the 55+ will do lots of complaining but it will be interesting if they catch on when young do lots of walking away.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
What I am saying is that for most of you, whatever happens you’re not going to like it. You can run, you can hide, whatever you do there is going to be a redistribution of wealth.
Anf if there isn’t you’re going Banana Republic.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Where does this antedeluvian shit resurface from? Ayn Rand? Read it just before college; anyone who talked it after sophomore year hadn’t taken a break from speed since freshman orientation. Also never thought I’d see anti-Darwinianism. Or the most wonderous and common corrupted take on the Constitution. Yes yes of course Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton were Born again. Riiiiight. It would be a great use to our American way of life if people read books, That is books–plural. Not one, not the Fox News Cliff Notes version. Read people. Like the Constitution; it takes about 7 minutes at a 4th grade reading level. Don’t say nothing about free markets, abortion. Christ (christ!).
Back to Rant (sic). If the old USA really operated like an Ayn Rant novel (see the movie version of The Fountaindead) life in this country would be like… I don’t know… Like the Soviet Union. That’s it.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Wow Barry, I am an avid reader of this blog but I just lost a lot of respect for you. You have managed to lump yourself in with the rest of the reactionary Left who bastardizes the concepts of Capitalism and the Objectivism of Ayn Rand in order to equate them with fraud, theft, dishonesty, and generally parasitic behavior when the entire substance of the aforementioned theories are based on the opposite; Objectivism is based on virtue, honesty, respect for yourself and others, property rights, and reward for contribution. Furthermore, to link Objectivism to this crisis is laughable when the epicenter of the entire crisis is a Central Bank and fiat money regime that is the antithesis of what Rand advocated for. From The Virtue of Selfishness:
“There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level (see “The Objectivist Ethics”).
If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice.”
~~~
BR: Blah blah blah . . . Its just so much nonsensical blather, blessedly data free, only loosely connected to reality.
One of the things I have learned in the many years of writing this blog is to consider and anticipate how things will be misinterpreted. Clearly, that’s something Rand might have given some thought to.
But the bottom line is I found the world Rand created to have little correlation to way actual Human Beings think and feel and behave in the real world. . .
November 15th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
The real story is that the usa tax code is already pretty close to a flat tax. When everything is taken into consideration the effective tax rate of vast majority of people in usa is about 20%. this includes income tax, SS tax, Sales tax. This does not really change much even with huge differences in marginal rates. The whole tax debate is usually silly. Do you know how many bets I have won when I challenge a friend that tells me they pay near 50%. Break out the tax return and win a bet. Effective rates are very reasonable in usa. And it is very similar across all income groups.
Of course if one is smart, one can set ones life accordingly and pay a very small rate of effective rate. Real Estate and manufacturing and farming come to mind. People that say they pay 50% taxes are delusional. It is very rare.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
“I imagine that Freud would bluntly use Randian logic to note they inhabit a guise of superiority in part to compensate for vast and deeply felt inferiorities and insecurities. . .”
________________
Randian men sport 3′ long vaginas.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
OK. I really should have the sense to steer clear of this one. So, right off — if you agree with me, then I’m “me.” If you don’t, then blame this comment on that CNBCS guy.
I also just happened to read “the two” Ann Rynd (“Rand” is the corporation) novels quite recently. I had no preconceived notions — I was book-deprived and a friend just happened to lent me the books in exchange for some I already read and lent to him (no loss of revenue here, Barry, I’ve only lent your book once, to a neighbor).
I read the shorter book in its entirety. I read the longer one and skipped the 60-page radio speech) (which, as best as I could tell took nothing away from the “story”). So, here’s my Ann Rynd FAQ:
Was it the best fiction ever written? Not by a long shot. Was it the worst? Not by a long shot. Let’s see you sit down and write 1,800 odd pages of fiction. Without a computer. Having said that, the stories could have been told in 1/3 the number of pages…
Was the topic original and clever? “I” thought so — I’ll get to that in a bit– I’ve read thousands of books, and never saw these ideas made into a story before.
Was it dated? Sure — people flew their own planes for personal transport — everybody smoked — you had to queue up for “the long distance telephone” and so forth. But, less dated than, say Beowulf.
Is it fit for high school or college kids to read? Of course not. Neither is history — sorry, but kids haven’t lived enough to have enough experience to put this stuff into context.
So, should one take the opinions of anyone who “read this as a kid 30 years ago”? Let’s leave that one for the reader to decide.
Did these works inspire a Philosophy and perhaps a Religion? Sigh. Sure seems that way. On the other hand, so did L. Ron Hubbard’s Science Fiction. For all I know, so will Steven King’s in a few decades.
Was there any real reason to? Not as far as I can tell.
So, what’s all the fuss about? Got me, boss. Seems like, every time somebody puts forward a novel or “original” idea (good or otherwise) a bunch of people start following them around, their ego (and income) grows by leaps and bounds, they take themselves all kinds of serious, and before you know it, they and their group are all doing phenomenally stupid things (just to tribe-up and stand apart), and the author gets all the blame.
OK. Was there any ideas in the books worth considering?
Well, here things get tricky — so tricky in fact, that we had to start a whole new paragraph. Remember the Blind Men and the Elephant (if not, go look it up)? It appears that everyone who reads this stuff comes away what they think is “the central idea” but you have to figure that at 1,800 pages, there are many central ideas and each will appeal to different readers.
Do you realize, by the way, she did the plot of The Producers in a paragraph? And used the phrase “fear and loathing” decades before Hunter Thompson? And that, you can take virtually any incredibly dumb statement in the book and find some company somewhere whose HR department issued almost exactly the same thing as a new policy/procedure.
These books had an ax to grind, and it was mostly against Stalin’s neck. As a reaction to her and others’ unbelievably awful treatment in the USSR, she postulated the idea the everybody should only be responsible for themselves, thereby eliminating the overhead of “freeloaders.” This, of course, is simplistic, and gets anyone with a heart (or a primate-based social brain) upset, as not everyone has the capacity at all times to take care of themselves.
I can certainly see that, if this is all one got out of the reading, one could be tempted to blame all selfish behavior on Ann Rynd. Somehow, though, I suspect that selfish behavior (or the rationale for it) didn’t begin in 1953, so you can all kinds of upset at Rynd if you like, but that’s a bit simplistic and unreasonable too.
Here is what “I” felt was new and unique about her stories:
Both books illustrate how crappy society treats those who actually create/produce something — not the wealthy, or the upper classes, or the “royalty,” or the celebrities — the producers of stuff. The problem is that creative people are driven and motivated by the desire and result of creation not necessarily by financial gain, consequently they can be treated like shit because they will continue to create anyway — what choice do they have? This is why we have so many “starving artists.”
Ann had a clever and unique idea. What would happen to society if these “producers” just stopped producing? This hasn’t ever happened (a union strike is the closest thing we’ve seen to this, but that is kind of a different cohort), and for the reason above, probably never will (though you see more and more of this passive resistance attitude of individuals or groups indulging in nonviolent civil disobedience in things like Dilbert and The Simpsons).
My conclusions:
1. Give the poor dead woman a break — ad hominem attacks don’t even cut it against the deceased.
2. Maybe, instead of everybody bitching about how some B-Team 50′s novelist destroyed American society, we ought to be thinking about treating our creative people better before they all turn into Homer and Wally?
OK. You try being profound in a little input rectangle.
p.s. I don’t have a Rynd sticker, I’ve never joined anything, and my rearview mirror is already bashed off.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Awesome comment, bergsten
~~~
Reality check: As bad as things have gotten in this nation over the past decade, its still damned fine for the elite. The US tax rate is cheaper than most of the industrialized world. I find the whining of the wealthy (ARAs especially) to be self-serving and lacking in all gratitude for their situation.
The top 1% of this country have it pretty damned good — they own multiple homes, plenty of high end toys, and have the most important luxury of all: time. The smarter ones easily provide for their family’s safety, health and well being.
The top one tenth of that top 1% live like Kings. There is nothing they can imagine they cannot possess, own or experience.
Like Mae West said: “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor — rich is much better.”
November 15th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
@tt: 20% tax…you can’t be serious. The social security tax is 15% right there when you consider that you could receive the employer paid portion of the tax. Then you have an average 6% sales tax, which is even higher for hotels, airfare, utilities, and other items. Considering our savings rate is below 5%, we could assume that most people pay at least 4% to sales tax. With an effective federal income tax of 15%, we are at 34% for average folks. This ignores any real estate and state income tax. That might be another 5% or more depending on your locale. So even folks in the 25% federal tax bracket are really paying close to 40% to taxes. If one is in the top tax bracket, they are getting darn close to 45 or 46%.
Rand’s writing does drag on and on. She could have made her point in a 1/4 of the pages. So you can’t make a case that she is a great writer. I also think many who have read her works misinterpret them. They think she advocates anarchy. She just believes that each individual should be treated equally in all aspects. The collective, whether it is unions or governments, tend to limit the rights of the individual. I would rather live in a world where individual rights reign supreme than the collective is celebrated.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
All of this bitching about taxes. Jeeeeezus!
We’re running deficits while the wealthiest among us hoard cash and commodities. I’ll bet the national debt we’ve taken on since Ronnie RayGun equals the income gap between the wealthiest 2% and the rest of us to the penny over the same period of time.
Look around, Randians: see all of the good shit in our society? The schools? The libraries? The electric lights? The highway system? Every goddamned thing else that separates us from the Afghanis? Taxes (and since RR, debt, a.k.a: taxes deferred) paid for it all. We voted for getting stuck with the bill under the false pretense that if we made the “productive” among us pay for any of it, society would collapse. Well guess what — society is collapsing now, and y’all are still protecting the ideology that put us here.
Like I said, 3′ long . . .
November 15th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Like somebody said above, Rand is warmed-over Nietzche, only a sucky unreadable version. Message to all you self-styled ubermenschen out there: you and everyone you love are one drunk driver away from a wheelchair. Get over yourselves. Even Bill Bennett finally came around and acknowledged the role of birth lottery.
I’m off to watch the Pats/Colts, ’cause I’m a non-producer like that.
Untermensch out.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Blah blah blah is quite an intelligent response- I’m starting to think that your 15 minutes of fame may already be up.
Who is saying that Rand would celebrate those in the top 1% and condemn those in the bottom 1%? Her views are all about merit, and there is clearly less merit in sucking money from wealth producers via Government Sachs than there is in working 40 hrs a week as a janitor. Rand’s views were clearly anti-Elitist and pro-innovator.
As far as your phallic reference, I think Objectivists are fairly secure in both their own abilities and the ability of their fellow man to add value. It is Collectivists: Communists, Socialists, Fascists, etc. who use the power of government to coerce citizens to support the narrow interests of the few. I look at Collectivists on both the Left and the Right as generally insecure people who need to be needed.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
http://www.gq.com/images/entertainment/books/2009/11/rand/ayn-rand-feature-image.jpg
November 15th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
November 15th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Your analysis of Ayn Rand and her philosophy couldn’t be more off in many respects. Asserting that you think knocking off someone’s rear view mirror in the guise of ‘selfishness” without penalty or fines is somehow consistent with her philosphy reveals how little you really know. Too bad. While her philosphy is definitely flawed, so is our semi-capitalistic based economic system. Greenspan as Fed Chairman, heck even having a fed chairman would have been an anathema to Rand. So would unregulated or unchecked markets as well as the bailouts ad naseum.
The tryanny of the majority Rand preached about is running rampant through Obamanomics. Life is indeed mimicking art and we are reminded of it everyday as the Messiah and his minions through Pelosi and Co. have press conference after press conference. Your fail to see the “big picture” here at all. So sad.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Oh yeah, as for Ayn Rand’s (yes, I know the “y” is in the first name — you can’t EDIT in the little input rectangle either) Objectivism Philosophy…
In My Humble Opinion — Philosophy is for the idle rich and the idle poor. The rest of us just don’t have the time for such foolishness.
So, I got no opinion on it whatsoever (other than it makes for a great insomnia cure).
November 15th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
CSPAN Booknotes had the authors of two recent Rand books on, neither of whom wielded hatchets no worshipped at the feet of Goddess of the Market.
http://www.booktv.org/Program/10928/Anne+Heller+quotAyn+Rand+and+the+World+She+Madequot+and+Jennifer+Burns+quotGoddess+of+the+Market+Ayn+Rand+and+the++++American+Rightquot.aspx
Both authors and books spoke to the powerful political DNA that Rand has and is contributing, from her involvent with the failed Wendell Willkie campaign through Goldwater and Reagan, National Review and WSJ editorial page.
There are many superior talents in the libetartarian vein like economists and political philosophical but both authors gathered from their research that due to Rand’s reach and popularity she is easily the Big Fish spawning much of what still courses through stream today. It is a good program, worth watching whatever’s one’s view or leanings.
They spoke of Rand and her movement flailing through the 40′s into the 50′s until the genius of grafting on the altruism motivation, the avenue to a higher moral ground that seems necessary for traction and appeal for isms,
whether con/liber-tar-al/enviro/soc/com/naz etc, the mitochondria that retains devotees and lends passion to the proselytizing necessary to win converts and lobs artillery across all battlegrounds.
A NYT Book Review of Gladwell’s WHAT THE DOG SAW, a critique piece, Stephen Pinker.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/review/Pinker-t.html
The GQ article opens early with “A weirdly specific thing happens with the books of Ayn Rand. It’s not just the what of the books, but when a reader discovers them—almost always during the first or second year of college. Rand grabs a reader at a time of maximum vulnerability and malleability, when he’s getting his first accurate sense of how he measures up in the world in terms of intellect and talent.”
Reading that some weeks ago I found it equally or more apt to Econ 101, retaking 101 then 2,3 during evening adult courses 20 years later in the mid-Nineties, bringing some volumes of an Hayek or Mises etc under my belt for contrast.
Interesting, the diverging shadows of Keynes and Hayek probably loom largest across the past century’s economics yet the text used for all three Econ segments for the year contained no mention of that school of economic thought nor Hayek, whether in the text or index or bibliography or footnotes, nowhere. The middle aged econ prof nearing retirement was largely unfamiliar with any of it.
An earlier poster ‘I quit my job in late 2007 because for me the equation no longer worked’ expressed my experience, retiring half dozen years ago pre-50 not to embrace greed and rapaciousness but to elude it. It does happen, owners have thrown the keys to the place in the face of another bureaucratic antagonist.
Another poster ‘Similarly, others will step up to take the jobs vacated by Kid and others who “have enough” to exit the system from which they’ve already profited so handsomely.’
As I recall it was dirty face and dirty jeans, hopefully clean hands after washing, and some risk to life and limb in precarious situations. It wasn’t much money, just somehow managing to spend less than earned which amounted to judiciously managed savings that grew, alot of sheer blind dumb luck, allowing present liberties. Not to prosyletize an ism but I would recommend it to anyone, the guilt for non-contibuting belongs with the cause.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
And you would assert that the lazy, socialist villains within Atlas Shrugged cannot be found, prolific, amongst us, today?
You Fools! Throwing out the babies with the bath water.
Wake up to the reality of that which is smothering the last of any freedom, and self-determination, you will ever have. There are hipocrytes on both sides of the aisle. Make your own way! Shun career politicians, and the status quo boardroom. They seek to ONLY hold their positions.
Next step? Vote with your dollars, and your ballot. Invest ONLY in what you believe is right and viable. Don’t vote for the charlatans. If there has ever been a time in history when we can easily identify the charlatans, it’s today! Find a worthy candidate and WORK for their election. Make it happen! Retake America!
It may take decades, but we did not get into this mess overnight. It will take time and some BUST ASS hard work to correct the problems that we have allowed to be.
How hard are YOU willing to work? You KNOW what needs to be done. Are you willing to DO it?
All great plans are ultimately reduced to work.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
KidDynamite,
“Our policy solutions to close revenue gaps feel to be largely to increase taxes on the wealthy. That’s all fine and dandy until the wealthy go John Gault and leave the system.”
RightWing gibberish.
A) The two greatest periods of prosperity in the 20th Century were when federal income tax rates on the Rich & Corporate were either at their highest or after the federal income tax had been raised on the Rich & Corporate.
B) On Friday night, during an interview with Charlie Rose, Warren Buffett stated:
* “If we’re looking for more money, I think we ought to be looking at guys like me. I am still paying a lower rate on dividends and capital gains than my cleaning lady is in her payroll tax.”
* “I’ve worked with all kinds of systems of taxation. I’ve worked with hundreds of rich people, even in the ’50s and the ’60s when the top rate was 70% and I’ve worked with them when the capital gains rate was 39.6%, and not one of them ever said ‘It’s one o’clock, instead of working this afternoon I think I’ll go to the movies because my marginal rate is so high’. If anything, they worked harder.”
“I quit my job in late 2007 because for me the equation no longer worked – that of giving 50%+ of my earnings to the system.”
NOBODY in America pays 50% of their income in taxes.
You’re either ignorantly adding up tax brackets (which nobody pays) instead of percentages of income, or you’re a liar.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
A little off topic here, but I just read my daughter’s homework assignment, Animal Farm. I’d never read it in high school – too busy drinking beer and I wouldn’t have understood it anyway.
It seems to me that this book is as relevant to our own current society as it was to the old Soviet Union. More relevant and thought provoking than Ayn Rand.
In any society or organization that I’ve seen, it appears true that those at the top didn’t necessarily get there by merit and their primary concern is not in improving life for anybody but themselves. Their time is spent in solidifying and improving their own position. There certainly are a lot of Napolean the Pig types in this world. I just hope that I’m not Boxer the Horse.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
I can’t help but shake my head at the recent stream of people disparaging Ayn Rand because Greenspan once claimed to have been influenced by her. I’m no Ayn Rand apologist by any means, but to claim Greenspan’s policies are Randian is no different than if I were to claim to be a vegan, and someone then blaming vegans for problems caused by my all-meat diet. It doesn’t matter how much lip service Greenspan paid Rand. The wealthy people in our society are not John Galts; they are James Taggarts.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
This is @Yossarian and @Barry,
The reason that Obama has such a problem doing the necessary things to fix this economy is because if he did, if he nationalized the banks, setup a strong regulatory structure and all the other stuff you recommend, the Yossarians of the world would say he is a communist, socialist, death pannels, etc., etc. In your blog, purposefully or unpurposefully you continue to underestimate the people of this cult. The Rand cult.
And the comments you are receiving here, just show the power of this cult following.
And Yossarian, Rand’s world would exist if humans were perfectly rational and considered the long term consequences of their short term decisions. But they don’t. As Barry has pointed out many, many times, people can often be irrational for long periods of time.
Now, here is what you must understand Yossarian. This does not mean that we are bashing capitalism. We love capitalism. But we understand that there needs to be rules setup for capitalism to work appropriately. Some of these rules are undeniably useful: contract enforcement. But there are others as well that are needed especially in a complex financial and globally intertwined world that we live in today. But Ayn Rand and her cult following reject all these rules and the only question I have for them is why not anarchism. I mean if all rules applied by governments to govern the behavior of men are so evil, what is wrong with anarchism?
November 15th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
@wrongway — you might also check out Orwell’s life story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell) — by no means dull. Among other things, apparently Animal House was dropped by one publisher based on the influence of a British government employee who turned out to be a Soviet agent. Har.
Also, allegedly 1984 (written about 40 years prior to that date) was based on Orwell’s experiences working for the BBC…
November 15th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Anal = RAND
but “” LUCK
is the resevor of a prepared mind”"
author unknown
November 15th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
I love the split between the two camps . . .
November 15th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
…the Productive people essentially opting out of carrying the lazy along.
“…for me, that’s the crux of it” – Kid Dynamite
Is lazy/unproductive being defined so narrowly that every full time worker paying little or nothing in income tax would be included? Doesn’t someone have to fill these jobs? What would happen to the economy if everyone making less than $30,000 went “Galt” en masse to make a point about how undervalued their contribution really is? Isn’t higher taxes to pay for more social benefits the flip side of “productive people” using global labor arbitrage to take profits at the expense of middle class jobs?
November 15th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
In her time and place Aynie was the literary equivalent of the La Haye end of the world shit that went around the last few years. Too bad Monty Python never got around to those two and Hugh Hefner, although they did a nice job on Jean Paul Sartre.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Barry writes:
“The top one tenth of that top 1% live like Kings. There is nothing they can imagine they cannot possess, own or experience.”
I believe this to be one of the greatest mis-conceptions of modern material existence. Generally speaking, these people are where they are because of a tremendous imbalance in their lives. Although they may be at the top in net worth, they probably lacking of an equal magnitude in other areas of their lives.
It seems that the truly greatest humans throughout history were almost always dirt poor.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Bergsten@7.46. Well stated. A lot of thought went into that comment. It was sober, coherent and many many good points. Thanks.
Barry’s response to you comment?…meh! Not so much….
Everything swings in cycles and right now it is clearly “cool” to bash the Randian crowd, given that they are totally responsible for everything that has gone wrong in the last 30 years (he he). I cannot believe BR spent that many pixels doing this sort of ‘hit and run’ on some dead lady incapable of defending herself. Classy. Must have had a real desire to get a faux “debate” going here….well done!
November 15th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
The problem with a lot of ‘Randtards’ is that they confuse what are essentially trust fund brats and well-connected people with ‘productive people’. Come on, how many people at say, Goldman Sachs or JPM actually produce anything? Ever see that reality TV show with music producer David Fosters’ kids? Best argument for putting in a 99% estate tax if you ask me.
Part of what’s brought on this financial crisis is the lousy corporate culture that’s become more and more prevalent over the years – one that rewards sucking up and following the herd rather than actual engenuity and creativity. Just reading ‘Conspiracy of Fools’ on how Enron was run but I’ve seen similar stuff at other companies. The people who are kinda dumb and don’t ask too many questions or value climbing the ranks and getting a fat bonus regardless of the extent it eventually destabilizes the compnay go a lot further than the clever ones who see crooked deals for what they are, lousy accounting for what it is, and incompetence in their ‘superiors’ – and instead of being rewarded, they are punished.
As for ‘wealth redistribution’ – currently, it’s being taken from the middle class and given to the rich. The super-rich – billionaires, etc. often just compete with each other over who would be top dog. Taxing them out the yin yang wouldn’t change that but would certainly bring in revenue for the government.
What most people seem to miss when they complain about taxes – is that they seem to be thinking mainly of taxes on employment income. However, a lot of the uber-rich don’t ‘earn’ a lot from employment, but from passive investments, tax shelters and so forth. Also, learn the distinction between top tax rate and top m-a-r-g-i-n-a-l tax rate before spewing off hyperbole about how ‘screwed’ you are going to be.
As for the rights of individuals being limited – well, grow up, that’s reality. It’s called ‘other people’ who, oddly enough have rights too, some of which may very well at some point conflict with yours. But I don’t find there’s a point arguing with extreme ‘libertarians’ – you can no more argue their beliefs than you can a religious person though I’ve always found it ironic that someone can cling so dearly to strict dogma yet insist they are rational.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
swim….
The federal tax rate has been about 18-20% of gdp for decades. This is just a fact. States revenues are about another 5%.
And since the panic of 08, the tax rate is about 15% of gdp.
This includes all taxes collected, including estate and excise taxes as well as SS and income and corporate. Most confuse marginal rates with effective rates. Go look it up. It has been consistent. Unless you are really doing something dumb, nobody pays 50% of income to taxes. But i will say there are two codes. One for employees and one for owners. The w2 guys that make 200k-700k do get socked more than a guy making a million with his own business.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Also, let’s face it – when it comes to ‘oppressive’ social structures vs the individual and even wealth redistribution – most of the time family certainly trumps government.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
@Joe Friday:
You lose a lot of credit when you claim to know something and say it in ALL CAPS when it turns out you have no idea what you are talking about. There are A LOT of people who pay more than 50% of their income in taxes. The marginal rate in NY is pushing 60% and it’s up there in Cali too. I don’t like the NY Post, but here’s a link confirming the NY rate.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/dem_health_rx_poi_on_pill_in_ny_3AApff75KCb9ZbMkjSC8PO
Perhaps you should do some research, because it kinda weakens you’re argument, you know… when you have no idea what you’re talking about.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Wonderful: I have just discovered that one of my favorite Bloggers moderates out posts that go against his personal views, despite the fact that said post contains no profanity or political propaganda. Et tu Ritholz?
~~~
BR: Cool your jets, nimrod. Its late Sunday night and I am just catching up with the 32 spam filtered comments. I expected some ARA pushback but not 100 comments on a weekend
November 15th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
“BR: And exactly how did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “destabilize” the housing market ?”
You’re kidding, right? How could a government sponsored entity that financed TRILLIONS of dollars of mortgages possibly create an unstable housing market….? Hmmmmm…..I dunno….I’m sure the government people that created these behemoths and “regulated” them probably administered the whole thing in a “stable” way. Because, you know that anything well regulated and left out of the control of the free market is much better….HA! [Cognitive Dissonance anyone?]
~~~
BR: It is a simple question, one that you have managed to avoid answering.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Some years ago I read a brilliant essay by a sociologist on the great paradox of American life. It is: On the one hand, one is supposed to develop oneself as an “individual.” But accompanying this, one is supposed to be successful. Now in fact the main way to become successful is to play the game – do what the system says you have to do. Which of course is pretty much the opposite of becoming an “individual.” He wrote that as far as he could tell, the main way Americans resolve this paradox is to play the game and try to become an “individual” by making more money compared to other people. Most of the Rand defenders sound like they fit: people who are in reality sheep who want to be individuals.
My idea of important individuals is just old-fashioned, I guess. It includes people like Newton, or Beethoven, or (in fact) Henry Ford. Many of them didn’t make a lot of money, though they had plenty of will and talent. One notes that some of them, like Newton, made remarks about how standing on the shoulders of those who went before him, as opposed to thinking they had done everything themselves somehow.
Most of the people writing on the Rand side strike me as insignificant people who want to be someone, who confuse making money with being an important individual. But that is not surprising, because making money is much easier to do than doing something really creative.
Barry, I think your love of good jazz musicians shows you understand the difference between actual creative individuals (some of whom do make money), and self-important hacks.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
sorry – sentence should have been “like Newton, made remarks about standing on the shoulders of those who went before him,”
November 15th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Great plays in 1Q by RAND-y Moss. Coincidence? I think not. ;-)
Yossarian just reminded me of another great book and great read: Catch-22. All the King’s Men another one.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I’m sorry I didn’t check the blog until now when there are so many comments (which I may or may not strive to examine). However, this was an awesome post, Barry, and I will certainly read the article. Right now, in fact!
Thanks!
November 15th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
@bergsten: spectacular comment. Dead on.
Bottom line: For whatever good or bad reasons, Ayn Rand wrote two off the most influential books in recent history. So what exactly defines good writing? Her writing certainly impressed me as being unbelievably powerful. Right or wrong. How many other books have that relevance or staying power?
I agree with Bergsten that people have seized upon her writing to serve their own purposes. And perhaps she got caught up in that as her source for support. I can recall not too long ago the conservatives were quoting Adam Smith like crazy until someone bothered to read a little more carefully. And he has not come up again. “They could afford to be generous”.
For me, the bottom line is she was totally against the collective and the elites. Mediocrity and legacy wealth and power do not breed competence or excellence.
And that’s exactly where we are as a nation. BananAmerica.
Meritocracy is DEAD. Long live Ayn.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
OK, I have to post this comment…Did anyone else notice that the comments on the original article @ GQ.com that defended Rand were strangely written in a style similar to her own work? IE, massive, ranting paragraphs! I love it! =P
November 15th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
I have a few posts scheduled for this weekt hat the Randians are gonna love . . .
November 15th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Really great commentary on this thread. Bergsten summed up exactly everything I feel about this book. It has to be considered a classic. Much like art, it is in the eye of the beholder. But a LOT of people have read it. A lot of people hate it. A lot of people abide by the philosophy in it. Personally, its ok for me. But there is no need to trash a dead novelist who was writing in the times of their existence. Instead, the focus should strictly be on those who interpret everything so damn literally.
As an aside, Robert Kiyosaki gets criticized all the time for Rich Dad Poor Dad being a bunch of make up junk that is poorly written. His response? “I may not be a best writing author, but I am a best selling author”. I think that quote fits most of the anti-Atlas Shrugged crowd.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
The boys at Goldman, Citi, et al, operate about as far from Randian principles as possible, though they no doubt consider themselves Jon Galt style producers. In truth they suckle off the tit off public funds siphoned from actual laborers. No doubt they are good at what they do, but they wouldn’t prosper but for an illegal entity known as the Fed – spewing credit all over a once powerful industrial nation.
So to pin Rand’s philosophy as the culprit for this distorted American economy misses the point.
I think what Rand missed, (or overlooked) was that the heroic producers of society would eventually side with corruption, not run from it. Whatever their ethical considerations, oligarchy quickly ensued.
Now, to those who would remedy this problem by delegating MORE power to the govt, then I must respectfully say that that they have lost their friggin minds.
Calling Greenspans policies Randian is downright silly. Thats like calling Stalin a populist, or Bush a republican. In Name Only. In name only.
Rand’s philosphy resonates with Americans because liberty and self determination are in our blood, and in our charter, The Constitution (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness?)
Lumping the criminal activity of the Banksters to the free market is an insult to hard working Americans, and an attempt by the Left to help the Government take more from the pockets of the many, and give to few. Not the reverse.
Greenspan… free market? Maybe in a theoretical undergrad paper. His real world activities spoke a lot louder than his term papers.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Barry,
Nice post.
I completely agree.
Rand is booooooring, ego-centric, and ………will be forgotten.
Marx/Engles, now that, is an interesting read….. at least it has some humanity and passion!
Good evening to all. ;-)
November 15th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
We are so special, arent we? Original insights to live by. I havent had the pleasure. Can you roll spliffs with it in the paperback or does that make you amotivational ? Rich dad Poor dad? How about we canonize George Steinbrenner? Re issue the complete Playboy philosophy in Hardcover. In this, as in many other cases you can smell the meth cooking in the kitchen. Sorry all, but the lack of punctuation should have tipped you off a long long time ago.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
“BR: And exactly how did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “destabilize” the housing market ?”
You’re kidding, right? How could a government sponsored entity that financed TRILLIONS of dollars of mortgages possibly create an unstable housing market….? Hmmmmm…..I dunno….I’m sure the government people that created these behemoths and “regulated” them probably administered the whole thing in a “stable” way. Because, you know that anything well regulated and left out of the control of the free market is much better….HA! [Cognitive Dissonance anyone?]
~~~
BR: It is a simple question, one that you have managed to avoid answering.
~~~
I know you’re a smart man Barry. It’s difficult to imagine that you don’t understand the answer to your own question. FNM and FRE were implicitly back by the USG because of their status as a GSE. They were funded at below market rates because of this. In return, they sponsored or funded TRILLIONS of dollars of mortgages or guarantees that would otherwise not have been given in a normal “free” market.
Imagine the market conditions over that last few decades WITHOUT a Fannie or Freddie? Do you honestly think as many mortgages would have been issued or demanded without these GSEs? They were the base of the pyramid/ponzi that was the Housing “market.”
The Fed could keep interest rates low as long as they wanted, but as long as there was no distribution mechanism for the “money,” it’s useless. FNM/FRE were some of the distribution mechanisms for the “money,” also known as credit.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Barry:
Why do you keep fighting the last war? It is a tendency of yours. Something makes me think you lost this argument in some debate society somewhere.
I would suggest losing 40 pounds…you’ll be happier and live longer.
B in T
November 15th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
I do not get this post AT ALL. Ayn Rand’s views were a grossly oversimplified view of the world. At the same time, all philosophies, or ‘isms if you will, are oversimplified ways to describe the world. Nothing with such blunt black and white stances can describe a world that has infinite shades of grey. Now that we’ve established that I’m not a ARA, we can discuss some points.
My biggest problem with this post is that it does not jive with what was said in Bailout Nation, namely that the free market really wasn’t at play (a government bailout by definition is not free market). Now we are blaming Ayn Rand for this? Ridiculous.
Barry you prefer John Maynard Keynes? As unrealistically consistent as Ayn Rand was, Keynes was the opposite by being perfectly inconsistent. As one example, he wrote a whole book about maximizing employment while at the same time wrote that all unemployment was a choice because workers were being too picky. Another example, he admits that business cycles are self correcting and yet advocates intervention. Finally, here is my favorite Keynes quote: “Thus gold-mines are of the greatest value and importance to civilisation, just as wars have been the only form of large-scale loan expenditure which statesmen have thought justifiable, so gold-mining is the only pretext for digging holes in the ground which has recommended itself to bankers as sound finance; and each of these activities has played its part in progress-failing something better.” I thought he hated gold? Whoops. And then he postulates that wars have helped progress the world? The man was a loon and I have no idea how anyone took him seriously back then, let alone today.
Bernanke and the other federal reserve board members almost all call themselves Keynesians. Greenspan may have been an Ayn Rand follower ages ago but his stint at Fed Chairman should show without a doubt that he no longer held those views while in power, or at least did not set policy that way. Why is Ayn Rand being blamed for this economic crisis? This is the worst Big Picture post I have ever read.
~~~
BR: Keynes knew how to trade . . .
November 15th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
BR – How do you do it. Have you ever considered patenting something for say Ecolab? Just a thought. I look forward to the rest of the week.
~~~
BR: Develops and markets cleaning, sanitizing, pest control, maintenance and repair products ?
November 15th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Wow, some serious Randian asshole action tonight. I love how the douchebags freak out when you call out their hero the hack writer she was.
War & Peace is readable and 1000s of pages long. Rand simply had verbal diarrhea.
I know, I know, the book is fantastick! It changed your lives!
Get over yourselves, dipshits.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Sadly I check this blog daily even though I am starting to disagree more and more. Started reading after I used to attend too many D.C. happy hours that were hosted by ARA’s. I’m pretty conservative socially but economically liberal (blame my Catholicism) so the gathers were fun but a little frustrating. I started to read Rand so I could pick it apart and see the flaws in objectivism. I read it trying to hate it, thinking of all of the obnoxious ARA that I argued with in D.C. – turns out the more I read the more I liked.
It seems like everyone pulls something from this enduring work. Alan Greenspan working from the FED (an inherently anti-free market institution) got the idea that keeping money cheap after 9/11 was a good idea, while others like alfred e (in the post above) pulled “For me, the bottom line is she was totally against the collective and the elites. Mediocrity and legacy wealth and power do not breed competence or excellence.”
I think most people take away what alfred does and for that I see Rand as an enduring author who still contributes much to a system that had inherent anti-free market elements.
The more important debate though – Brady or Manning?
Brady because of his clutchness.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
“puritans who have spent the past three decades gleefully pulling the cooling rods out of the American economy” … if that is a nuclear metaphor .. the term is “control rods” dampen the chain reaction .. and cooling water is what boils to push the turbine that turns the generator that makes electricity that powers my www connected computer
November 15th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
You Randians have been just suckered by your Superior.
This post is classic flame bait, and you gave Ritholtz exactly what he wanted — a firestorm on an otherwise slow Sunday.
Fools.
I have been reading this blog for 3 years — it makes me money — but I can always tell when our host is hankering for a fake fight, and this one fits to a “T”. I suspected earlier, but the sideview mirror was the final “tell.”
Bravo and touche. You completely fooled the ARAs. Who would thought that the “Superiors” could be so easily duped ?
November 15th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
@ Dennis good call.
@BR – just attack zero hedge next sunday and I’m sure you’ll get the same results!
Har Har
November 15th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
heh heh
November 15th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
“BR: Keynes knew how to trade . . .”
Barry, Keynes HATED STOCK MARKETS. If he had his way your fund would be taxed so heavily that it would be infeasible to keep it open. Why do you defend this man who hated free markets? Keynes ain’t your mate. Here are some Keynes quotes for you…
“Of the maxims of orthodox finance none, surely, is more anti-social than the fetish of liquidity, the doctrine that it is a positive virtue on the part of investment institutions to concentrate their resources upon the holding of “liquid” securities.”
“Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a whirlpool of speculation. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. The measure of success attained by Wall Street, regarded as an institution of which the proper social purpose is to direct new investment into the most profitable channels in terms of future yield, cannot be claimed as one of the outstanding triumphs of laisserz-faire capitalism – which is not surprising, if I am right in thinking that the best brains of Wall Street have been in fact directed towards a different object. These tendencies are a scarcely avoidable outcome of our having successfully organized “liquid” investment markets. It is usually agreed that casinos should, in the public interest, be inaccessible and expensive…The introduction of a substantial Government transfer tax on all [stock market] transactions might prove the most serviceable reform available, with a view to mitigating the predominance of speculation over enterprise in the United States.
The spectacle of modern investment markets has sometimes moved me towards the conclusion that to make the purchase of an investment permanent and indissoluble, like marriage, except by reason of death or other grave cause, might be a useful remedy for our contemporary evils.”
He hated day trading in his day. What do you think he would have thought about computer based trading to hold stocks for milliseconds? He would have been against it all.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Worst post ever, your 15 minutes are up.
My favorite is stop picking on a dead lady who can’t defend herself. What would happen if you bashed Mein Kampf?
*This reductio ad nazium moment brought to you by the Colts secondary.
~~~
BR: You completely missed the entire point — its not really about the dead lady, but her followers.
Capiche?
November 15th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Keynes knew how to trade . . .
This Keynes–
I’m reminded of one of my “Sacred Cows” which relates a much overlooked story about the famed economist, John Maynard Keynes.
Years ago, when I was running my own brokerage firm, an opportunity was presented for me to hire a gentleman who possessed a PhD. Shortly after I retained his services, I excitedly told my mentor and best client of what I thought was a hiring coup for my company. His silence let me know he wasn’t impressed.
About two weeks later, I received a plain manila envelope from him containing a photocopy of an essay entitled, “From the Garden.” It was written in the 1930′s about the great economist John Maynard Keynes. In London during this period, a group of very smart and well-connected financiers had convinced Keynes to manage a public fund that they would market. His stellar reputation and credentials would surely bring in many clients, and high fees would flow to these organizers and Keynes. It never occurred to them that Keynes couldn’t manage money. During a short period of time, the value of the assets garnered by these individuals and entrusted to Keynes dwindled away. He was quietly removed from the management of the portfolio and returned to his previous role as an economist.
Or the one who knew how to blind’m with bullshit, providing the intellectual cover.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Sounds like the predeccessor to LTCM’s hiring Nobel Laurelates for the same purpose . . .
November 15th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Oh geez. I’ve avoided Rand since I was forced to read Atlas Shrugged in High School. If I was a high school student now I’d just order the book report off the internet. Will reading the Wikipedia summary suffice this time around?
BR — Does this mean you’ll be doing the blogger’s equivalent of ripping off rear view mirrors ;-)
November 15th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
“Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: . . . . . . . . . . . They’d like to have an amoral political program.”
Ayn Rand
We laugh at her too.
“Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.”
Ayn Rand
Because,like so many people here,she worshiped the State.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Touché. Lowenstein’s had a few choice words since Oct07. Fwiw, on Gladwell’s luck thingy many or most probably attribute good fortune to their own doing, bad something to blame. From experience I’d allocate both faces of luck
a large proportion, maybe lion’s share, to life’s sorting process. Pinker allocates fraudulence.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Its a great irony that too many of todays followers of Rand wrap themselves in the flag, have an “America, Love it or leave it” attitude. Not very much in sync with Rand’s belief in independence of thought.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
“Make Mine freedom”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY
November 15th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
This blog jumped the shark. What happened to the interesting economics discussions? Now we have to replace them with pointless flame wars and potshots?
When is Yves gonna finish that book?
~~~
BR: Yes, we have replaced all 11,545 economic posts with flame wars and potshots.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Transor Z Says:
November 15th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Worst post ever, your 15 minutes are up.
My favorite is stop picking on a dead lady who can’t defend herself. What would happen if you bashed Mein Kampf?
*This reductio ad nazium moment brought to you by the Colts secondary.
~~~
BR: You completely missed the entire point — its not really about the dead lady, but her followers.
Capiche?
~~~
I didn’t miss the post. You missed the snark. Right back at ya.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
point
November 15th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
BR, I’ve been reading you, as well as Mish and the others, for years now. Really. I always overlook your grammatical mistakes as well as your bias toward liberalism simply because reading you as well as the others gives a commoner like me the ability to have an inkling of what’s going on in the economy/financial world. Whether your post was just flame bait to generate some hits to boost ad revenue or whatever, your post is a bit disappointing and frankly sophomoric. It reminds me of a young republican or even ann coulter.
Ayn Rand is by no means perfect, and Objectivism doesn’t work. That said, better than almost anyone I’ve read, Rand nails the thought process of those whom she would refer to as collectivists. That said, her proposed solutions are naive at best.
The best testament to Ayn Rand’s writing is the number of people I’ve met in my life who have fled totalitarian states or even just socialist states to come to America because they read Rand (usually Atlas Shrugged). Perhaps because she actually was a student in Russia while Lenin was trying NEP and proposing 5 year plans she is more authentic. Perhaps because the policies and language being employed by those in power today (Rs and Ds and FIREmen) are best exposed by Rand’s writings, her popularity is roaring back. Whatever the case, her long-winded writing manages to inspire people. It pulls back the curtain and exposes much of the world for what it is: people seeking to enslave their fellow men.
The founders of our country (some of whom you seem to like) seemed to understand that and tried to create something unique. We’ll see if we hold on to it.
Me? I might just go out and buy a “Who is John Galt?” sticker for my car. When my mirror goes missing, I’ll expect you to act like a grown up and buy me a new one.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
A lot of stuff has jumped the shark, lately, but not this blog. The damage done to our economic system by laissez-faire capitalism over the past half century, and the situation we find ourselves in today, are largely due to the Randian zeitgeist of the period.
RE: “Make Mine Freedom”
Check the dudes yelling each other at the all-male town hall meeting at 1:14.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
@Marcus Aurelius
Laissez-faire? What are you talking about? There hasn’t been laissez-faire for over 100 years. And most certainly not since FDR hijacked the economy and built a new “temple” (his term). It’s his temple that is crumbling now and laissez-faire is the best hope for returning the country to its previous glory.
~~~
BR: Old joke:
Over the past 30 years in the US, we came about as close to true laissez-faire free market capitalism, including the world’s most aggressive financial deregulation, as you are likely to see in your lifetime.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Pt.1
@BR, I’ve been reading you, as well as Mish and the others, for years now. Really. I always overlook your grammatical mistakes as well as your bias toward liberalism simply because reading you as well as the others gives a commoner like me the ability to have an inkling of what’s going on in the economy/financial world. Whether your post was just flame bait to generate some hits to boost ad revenue or whatever, your post is a bit disappointing and frankly sophomoric. It reminds me of a young republican or even ann coulter.
Ayn Rand is by no means perfect, and Objectivism doesn’t work. That said, better than almost anyone I’ve read, Rand nails the thought process of those whom she would refer to as collectivists. That said, her proposed solutions are naive at best.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
There’s an intense essay by Whittaker Chambers from the 1957 National Review (William F Buckley’s magazine, hardly liberal) called “Big Sister Is Watching” on Atlas Shrugged where he accuses Rand of advocating sending people to the gas chambers. And says the book is shit.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Like Keynes:
“The time has already come when each country needs a considered national policy about what size of population, whether larger or smaller than at present or the same, is most expedient. And having settled this policy, we must take steps to carry it into operation. The time may arrive a little later when the community as a whole must pay attention to the innate quality as well as to the mere numbers of its future members.”
John Maynard Keynes
The End of Laissez-Faire
1926
November 15th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Big difference between being pro-eugenics in 1926 and 1957.
November 15th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Swampfox:
This is what I mean (from Wikipedia):
Laissez-faire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In economics, Laissez-faire (English pronunciation: /ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər/ ( listen), French: [lɛsefɛʁ] ( listen)) means allowing industry to be free of government restriction, especially restrictions in the form of tariffs and government monopolies. The phrase is French and literally means “let do”, though it broadly implies “let it be” or “leave it alone”. Sometimes, but rarely, the phrase is used to describe a form of philosophic anarchism.
___________________
Sounds like deregulation, Reaganomics, and MBSs to me.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Like Mae West said: “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor — rich is much better.”
i’ve been both but it was because i thought that sophie tucker said it, not mae west.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Arguing through name calling demeans you. What would your reaction be to a magazine article or blog that referred to BRAs (Barry Ritholz Assholes)? Your pomposity has increased in direct proportion to your book’s success.
BTW – read your book – overrated!!!
Al
~~~
BR: You are totally wrong. I am the same jackass I have always been, only with a larger audience.
Its a subtle distinction.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:08 am
I remember George Orwell discussing a rather violent and amoral crime novel, No Orchids For Miss Blandish. It came out during the Blitz, and as Orwell noted, it helped compensate for the tedium of getting bombed. It involved kidnapping, torture, rape, murder and the pursuit of power in the American underworld. It wasn’t a political book, at least not on the surface, but the book was pure fascism. The only values were those of strength and power. Even money was unimportant save as an avenue towards power.
Rand’s books might seem to be about business and money, but they too are about power, though her interest is in financial power which is why there are video games set in the Chicago underworld but not in Ayn Rand’s fantasy universe. She is big on the superman fantasy, that of the unique irreplaceable individual. It’s a great and persistent fantasy. In one medieval fantasy those born with a caul would fight evil in their sleep, but as in any real battle, death was death, whether experienced awake or in the enchanted fight. Rand’s heroes are like the X-Men, but her mutants are less human, and their mutant powers come with no limitations or consequences. In the real world the kings and princes are just as fungible as everyone else, valuable in their way, but for fate there would have been others. I would have no problem with others, especially if they didn’t whine so much as the ones we have.
As for her writing, it reminds me of the Marquis de Sade, another philosopher who professed to write novels. de Sade, like Rand, was a pornographer who larded his pornography with ridiculous and often endless speeches about philosophy. Even more heroically than any of Rand’s supermen, they were usually up for action after their soporific orations. Unlike Rand, de Sade, at least, had a sense of humor.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:12 am
@br: I just re-read your post. Incredibly vicious and inaccurate. A rant. Were you sober when you wrote that?
Or just interested in inciting a riot on an otherwise dull Sunday?
Where is CNBCSucks when you need him?
Well you made the mess. Let’s see how you clean it up. Doofus.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:41 am
@MA
Somebody using the handle “Marcus Aurelius” shouldn’t be quoting wikipedia as a definitive source on Laissez-faire economics. Try again.
@ transor Z …. Big difference? First, you haven’t supplied a quote from Rand about being pro-eugenics. I’d be interested in seeing one. Secondly, the only thing that happened between the 20s and the 50s that might change people’s public opinion on eugenics was the holocaust. Are you saying that Keynes failed to think through where his ideas would lead? (shocker given our current economic mess) Or are you saying that keynes recognized where his ideas lead, but didn’t dare say a word about it because people were horrified by the holocaust?
November 16th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Ayn Rand stuff aside..what’s the bigger news story..the Patriots STUPIDLY going for it with a lead from their own 25 on 4th down only to give the ball to Peyton with plenty of time and a short field to go? OR…..Gold at 1130/ounce at the moment?
November 16th, 2009 at 12:53 am
10/10.
You must have been a vicious SOB to cross in law school.
gg
@investorpa:
GGUF, but Belicheat blowing it despite dominating the game? Priceless!
November 16th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Incidentally, here’s a pretty good example of the looters: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125832961253649563.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews
On the finance side, not all of the CEOs feed at the trough of the government, though I will say that there does seem to be an inherent quid pro quo between government and the banks, in that as I see it the banks underwrite and create markets in our debt, and are cartelized through the Federal Reserve system and often bailed out.
Anyway, as for a CEO that so-called Randians might respect, John Allison at BB&T ran a firm that for example was anti-takings and tried to operate under libertarian principles (wouldn’t necessarily characterize them as Objectivist or Randian). He does a pretty good job of explaining how it was the farthest thing from Randian or Hayekian or any kind of free market principles that precipitated and will prolong the Great Recession here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ls_financial_crisis
November 16th, 2009 at 1:24 am
Never read atlas shrugged, but I do think we should get around to harnessing the power of electrical storms, however in order to come full circle we do need to start taxing the rich. On another front, let me ty to paste a link in here.. interesting enough to share I think…
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1346294620091113
November 16th, 2009 at 1:26 am
These folks (thank you all for chiming in) said it better than I ever could. I realize my copying of their work adds nothing but I am compelled to add my support to their views:
Marcus Aurelius:
All of this bitching about taxes. Jeeeeezus!
We’re running deficits while the wealthiest among us hoard cash and commodities. I’ll bet the national debt we’ve taken on since Ronnie RayGun equals the income gap between the wealthiest 2% and the rest of us to the penny over the same period of time.
Look around, Randians: see all of the good shit in our society? The schools? The libraries? The electric lights? The highway system? Every goddamned thing else that separates us from the Afghanis? Taxes (and since RR, debt, a.k.a: taxes deferred) paid for it all. We voted for getting stuck with the bill under the false pretense that if we made the “productive” among us pay for any of it, society would collapse. Well guess what — society is collapsing now, and y’all are still protecting the ideology that put us here.
postmodernprimate:
November 15th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Is lazy/unproductive being defined so narrowly that every full time worker paying little or nothing in income tax would be included? Doesn’t someone have to fill these jobs? What would happen to the economy if everyone making less than $30,000 went “Galt” en masse to make a point about how undervalued their contribution really is? Isn’t higher taxes to pay for more social benefits the flip side of “productive people” using global labor arbitrage to take profits at the expense of middle class jobs?
Machiavelli999:
The reason that Obama has such a problem doing the necessary things to fix this economy is because if he did, if he nationalized the banks, setup a strong regulatory structure and all the other stuff you recommend, the Yossarians of the world would say he is a communist, socialist, death pannels, etc., etc. In your blog, purposefully or unpurposefully you continue to underestimate the people of this cult. The Rand cult. And the comments you are receiving here, just show the power of this cult following.
And Yossarian, Rand’s world would exist if humans were perfectly rational and considered the long term consequences of their short term decisions. But they don’t. As Barry has pointed out many, many times, people can often be irrational for long periods of time.
Now, here is what you must understand Yossarian. This does not mean that we are bashing capitalism. We love capitalism. But we understand that there needs to be rules setup for capitalism to work appropriately. Some of these rules are undeniably useful: contract enforcement. But there are others as well that are needed especially in a complex financial and globally intertwined world that we live in today. But Ayn Rand and her cult following reject all these rules and the only question I have for them is why not anarchism. I mean if all rules applied by governments to govern the behavior of men are so evil, what is wrong with anarchism?
Jessica6:
The problem with a lot of ‘Randtards’ is that they confuse what are essentially trust fund brats and well-connected people with ‘productive people’. Come on, how many people at say, Goldman Sachs or JPM actually produce anything? Ever see that reality TV show with music producer David Fosters’ kids? Best argument for putting in a 99% estate tax if you ask me.
Part of what’s brought on this financial crisis is the lousy corporate culture that’s become more and more prevalent over the years – one that rewards sucking up and following the herd rather than actual engenuity and creativity. Just reading ‘Conspiracy of Fools’ on how Enron was run but I’ve seen similar stuff at other companies. The people who are kinda dumb and don’t ask too many questions or value climbing the ranks and getting a fat bonus regardless of the extent it eventually destabilizes the compnay go a lot further than the clever ones who see crooked deals for what they are, lousy accounting for what it is, and incompetence in their ’superiors’ – and instead of being rewarded, they are punished.
As for ‘wealth redistribution’ – currently, it’s being taken from the middle class and given to the rich. The super-rich – billionaires, etc. often just compete with each other over who would be top dog. Taxing them out the yin yang wouldn’t change that but would certainly bring in revenue for the government.
What most people seem to miss when they complain about taxes – is that they seem to be thinking mainly of taxes on employment income. However, a lot of the uber-rich don’t ‘earn’ a lot from employment, but from passive investments, tax shelters and so forth. Also, learn the distinction between top tax rate and top m-a-r-g-i-n-a-l tax rate before spewing off hyperbole about how ’screwed’ you are going to be.
As for the rights of individuals being limited – well, grow up, that’s reality. It’s called ‘other people’ who, oddly enough have rights too, some of which may very well at some point conflict with yours. But I don’t find there’s a point arguing with extreme ‘libertarians’ – you can no more argue their beliefs than you can a religious person though I’ve always found it ironic that someone can cling so dearly to strict dogma yet insist they are rational.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Funny, I have always found that ARA more often stood for Anti-Randian Assholes. The sneers are definitely on display here.
I have never read Rand, but I have read a lot of comments about it and they make a fair amount of sense. The responses I see rarely deal with the substance of what the commenters say. Blah Blah Blah… really Barry?
~~~
BR: You should definitely read Atlas shrugged and than make up your own mind
November 16th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Going for it on forth down was a good call in this Pat’s fan view. Peyton was unstopable, and that was the only chance to keep him off the field.
On another note – I know people that have got your book in pdf off of Bit torrents and have made a little bit of $$$ selling it to kindle users. They are what you would call ARA’s, better not piss them off they don’t believe in copyrights.
Pirate Bay is now a political movement – ask Europe.
Action -> Consequence
November 16th, 2009 at 3:19 am
I’ve read We The Living, Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, with my favorite being Fountainhead, but I agree, Rand’s ideas are a religion and cannot withstand serious scrutiny. Still, I support her notion that a healthy society should not begrudge its wealthiest members, as long as they earned their wealth legally. When folks today evoke Rand, however, they don’t focus on this simple point; rather, they promote the world of Atlas Shrugged as an ideal world. Fools. Atlas Shrugged has monopolists for heroes, and last I checked, we don’t yearn for a return of Standard Oil. Worse, to counter Obama with “Ayn rants” is to attack one religion with another. Total waste of time.
~~~
BR: Jeff, you wont get any disagreement from me. Remember, I was the fool who defended GS’ bonuses, thinks Foreclosures are the way to normalize home prices, and mentioned bank repo boats for sale. Caught a lot of crap for all of it . . .
November 16th, 2009 at 3:51 am
Barry,
I believe you were disingenuous in what you wrote. If this is not the case, then I simply don’t understand what to make of your comments. But the tone of your post struck me as malicious. You may have been joking, but to me you were defending your own acts of property damage.
Bashing Ayn Rand is completely unoriginal in my experience. I think that your poor choice of subject and the silly reaction from some of your readers are on par. Though, I did read some enlightened responses (bergsten’s for example).
I’ve been reading your blog for quite some time now. I appreciate the often unique content. But you’re off my list of daily reading now. I want to explain exactly why in detail, but can’t really nail it. It’s just that I think you’re exercising unwarranted malice towards some stereotyped group and also mocking innovative and idealistic thought. In addition, I’m not sure whether to take seriously what you write in the future and I don’t care to worry about it at all. You’re probably trying to be entertaining, but I feel isolated. You’re probably thinking: “good riddance”.
I hope you realize the bad precedent that this type of post sets. Unfortunately, even if you do, it’s too late to ever have me as a reader again. There is an increasing number of quality blogs that cover the economy and finance so I’m not worried about missing too much.
I hope you will recognize my sincerity when I say that I’m disappointed with your post not because I agree to some extent with some of Ayn Rand’s ideas, but because I don’t understand the vitriol. It seems that you’re railing against some people who’ve annoyed you under the guise of a crude joke.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:22 am
“Really. I always overlook your grammatical mistakes”
lol, that one takes the cake over, “your 15 minutes are over” or “stop picking on a dead lady who can’t defend herself.”
I read the Fountainhead, thought it was a good “novel,” then Atlas Shrugged, thought it was brilliant “novel, then I got out of college .
Have you seen a bunch of Randians together? more dorks than a Trekkie convention. (i know ad hominem, but i can’t help myself.)
people who complain about 50% tax rates don’t know the difference between marginal and effective rates.
“But yes, for penis imagery and rape fantasies, she was without peer.” OMG, it’s late, i got to go to bed, but this thread is too funny.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:55 am
@BR
I see you’ve adopted the OCTABOX strategy with this thread…A bunch of people shouting at each other so much nobody can hear anyone else… The winner is the one with the thick bellow-y voice…
It seems to work on TV, so, I suppose, why not give it a go here too?
November 16th, 2009 at 6:19 am
I thought it might be good for some shits & giggles on a slow Sunday.
In all honesty, I have to confess that Dennis is pretty much on the money
November 16th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Atlas Shrugged is a Romance novel…………..
“Conspiracy of Fools”, as jessica mentions imho, is more seminal……..it is a factual account of how humans actually play with each other, if you take Gladwell’s premise, which I agree with, Luck plays a huge part in many historical events……….the luck part is who ends up where at what time…………..
The sad part of Enron is that 100′s of employee’s were incensed about what was going on and fought it too no avail because in the end they were powerless….moral of the story fear the super rich man who uses alot of consultants, lol
November 16th, 2009 at 7:00 am
BR – Hook, Line and Sinker. You’re a cold, hard man….. :-)
November 16th, 2009 at 7:06 am
(a) Three concepts that are often conflated are high levels of income, of economic productivity, & of societal contributions. Examples are coupon-clippers, that beloved hard-working school janitor, and Mother Theresa. Randians often seem especially confused about the distinctions.
(b) To those who cherish “going Galt”: Please do. You’ll never be missed. The only negative consequences will be to your own self-delusions.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Given the defense of GS bonuses here, this post was uber-predictable, if a bit late to the game.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:42 am
I noticed that people that fall for the Randian spell usually lack reasoning skills. Randian arguments are so vague and so presumptuous that serious philosophers think it is a joke to even put forth a critique against her “philosophy”. It is unfortunate that there is not enough debunking of this “philosophy” going on.
Michael Shermer has a chapter about Rand cult in his book “Why People Believe Weird Things” (chapter 8) – it touches on a few very important points why Randian following is like a cult.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:44 am
lol – “eight)” turned into a smiley face
November 16th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Barry,
Now that you have done what you usually do, why not another good post on the Obama-McCain election? Or why we should hate Bush I and Bush II? Or any other issue that means nothing and has little to do with today’s economic environment?
You really do go off on these tangents way too often….it is one of the goofy things about this website…
B in T
~~~
BR: 1) I actually like Bush 1 and think he was a smart guy, and a fairly competent President;
2) I don’t hate Bush 2, but I do think he had terrible judgment and was not particularly competent — indeed, he was grossly incompetent (See Pricing in a Bush Presidency);
3) I write about what I feel like. If it is off topic or uninteresting to you, than skip that post! There are more than 11,000 others;
4) Its a Sunday post — you need to get a hobby!
November 16th, 2009 at 9:36 am
One of the reasons I read you is that you debunk economic bullshit better than most everyone else.
I appreciate the joke, but here’s the serious question: Why not give Objectivism a real fisking? Take a run at her worst assumption and excesses.
I am curious if you could actually do justice to weaknesses in Rand’s belief system
November 16th, 2009 at 9:48 am
By coincidence, this is in this week’s New York Magazine:
The Hard Fall of Hedge Funders
Hedge funders, the Ayn Randian rock stars of the financial boom, fall to Earth. Hard.
http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/62055/#ixzz0X29MYG0R http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/62055/
November 16th, 2009 at 10:31 am
*snap* *snap*
November 16th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Here’s a fine thumbnail of Ms. Rand as sociopath:
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2009/11/12/institutionalizing-sociopathy/
November 16th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Ayn Rand, blah blah blah. Who cares?
Here’s Brian Burke’s defense of Bill Belichick’s decision to go for it on 4th and 2 last night:
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/defending-belichicks-fourth-down-decision/?emc=eta1
November 16th, 2009 at 11:58 am
BR:
Bravo. Some of these folks really deserved the wedgie that you delivered.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
You really don’t see the irony in what you say and do, ADHD Transor.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I think it’s time for a new internet law, along the lines of Godwin’s Law. Let’s call it the Randroid Law:
When a discussion devolves to the point that one side uses a Randian statement, character, situation, etc. (ESPECIALLY “go Galt”), that side has automatically lost the discussion.
That’s it. It’s that simple. Rand’s Superhero-Creator Paradise has been proven to be full of bullshit seven ways from Sunday already. The discussion is over. Rand is wrong. And anyone who wants to keep the discussion going and claim that they are devalued by society for their obviously superior contributions, so-they’re-just-going-to-go-Galt-and-show-everybody-yadda-yadda-yadda, enjoy tilling your own fields, planting and raising your crops, slaughtering your animals, building your house, wiring your house for electricity, generating that electricity, providing your own sewerage, fixing your own car, making your own appliances, cleaning your own house, paving your driveway and road, and using the leftover leisure time to be your fantastic creative self.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Its in human nature that a lot of dumb selfabsorbed a$$es just love the idea that they are just to terribly hard working and everybody else are freeloading of them. They completely miss the fact that if dumped into Zimbabwe, their little fat selfish a$$es would be roasting over charcoal – not making millions on other peoples hard labor. The only reason these fools are successful and have the opportunity to whine about taxes, is that “we the people” (no it was NOT God) have decided to create and maintain an environment and society where some are allowed to use their business smarts to suck others dry.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
bernandoo,
“There are A LOT of people who pay more than 50% of their income in taxes.”
No, there aren’t.
.
“The marginal rate in NY is pushing 60% and it’s up there in Cali too. I don’t like the NY Post, but here’s a link confirming the NY rate.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regional/dem_health_rx_poi_on_pill_in_ny_3AApff75KCb9ZbMkjSC8PO”
Ah, no.
They are adding up tax BRACKETS. Not to mention fictitiously proposed additional taxation that does not exist.
Can you possibly be that gullible ?
.
“…it kinda weakens you’re argument, you know… when you have no idea what you’re talking about.”
As you’ve quite aptly demonstrated.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
@hoot22:
Eh? Irony? ADHD? Eh? You lost me.
If you read the thread above you’ll see that there are a number of comments re: last night’s Pats/Colts game, some by me. My INTENT was to telegraph a tongue-in-cheek attitude toward this whole discussion of a dogmatic dead broad’s intellectual legacy.
If you’re a football fan, last night’s game was by far the best game of the NFL season so far, so… whatever, I guess.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
ShatteredArm Says: “I can’t help but shake my head at the recent stream of people disparaging Ayn Rand because Greenspan once claimed to have been influenced by her”
You mean regularly hanging out at her apartment, defending Atlas Shrugged from negative reviews in the NYT, lecturing for the Nathaniel Branden Institute, generally evangelizing on behalf objectivism – the philosophy he’d personally adopted, publishing articles in her magazines, being included in her essay collections, joining the Ayn Rand Collective, having her at his side when he was officially appointed to the president’s council of economic advisers, and generally continuing a 30 year long friendship with her until her death? That claim?
November 16th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
The thing I liked most about Rand was that she opposed the invasion of Vietnam. The thing I liked least about Rand was that she opposed the invasion of Vietnam because she considered it too “altruistic”. That position alone is really all you need to know to understand the totality of her Objectivism.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
A cartoon on Ayn Rand
http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/10/will-everyone-please-stop-frea
November 16th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Great blog, Barry.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I’ve never read her books, but as I understand it Ayn Rand believed stealing, fraud, and taking waht wasn’t yours was wrong. Yet every single criticism I hear of her depicts some sort of brute with a club beating someone over the head and taking their wallet.
Something doesn’t fit.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
If you are an Objectivist, you are retarded. This is a judgment call, and I just made it. Grow up or fuck off. Those are your two options.
First of all, let us never overlook the fact that Rand’s novels are atrocious as literature. Boring, repetitive, unconscionably long-winded, and written at approximately a 10th Grade level. Her wooden characters, the dialogue that makes you feel like you’re being lectured by your uncle, and the idiotic plot all read as if written by a 17 year-old shut-in who spends a lot of time touching himself under a life-sized poster of Hayek. Atlas Shrugged is to literature what Battlefield: Earth is to film – it’s five times too long and leaves readers wondering if Rand ever met another human being let alone successfully interacted with one.
Second, whatever respect we could have for Rand in light of her awful writing skills is obliterated by her unbelievably sophomoric “philosophy.” It’s exactly the kind of anti-intellectual, preachy, self-aggrandizing shit that plays well with immature people who think the world revolves around them – in other words, college kids. Yet Objectivists themselves have contempt for academia, which refuses to dignify their little cult with serious study. But who could be expected to take this sort of thing seriously?
November 16th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
To all those above who despise this woman, she has one thing to say to you:
“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed”.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
“You should definitely read Atlas shrugged and than make up your own mind – BR”
I dont need to read Rand to see the side of the debate I would WANT to be on; the calmly spoken Randians rather than the dismissive, sneering, vitriol spewing ARAs.
This is like the global warming debate. Propenents of AGW too often come across as hysterical nutjobs, while the anti-warmers seem rational and thoughtful in comparison. No wonder the ranks of the sceptics is growing, while all the AGWers can do is accuse them of denying some sort of climate holocaust and try to shut down debate where ever it pops ups.
~~~
BR: So its not the content that persuades you, but the anger/frustration/annoyance of the parties that determines your selection?
Fascinating selection criteria . . .
November 16th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
I’m not defending Ayn Rand. I don’t espouse objectivism. The book as literature is junk. But what is, is. More than a half century ago this woman described where our society was headed and, goddamnit, we’re there. You say you read the book, but I’m dubious. Because anyone with a three-digit IQ who read the book couldn’t write what you did.
Greenspan claims to be a fan of Rand’s. That’s all people know. He is exactly the kind of public figure she shined a light on in this book. She would be no fan of his. What’s in the book is not a matter of opinion. It’s there to be read by anyone who cares to. But of course it’s more than 1100 pages and most people never read an 1100 page book in their life.
To criticize someone when they made such a great call? That’s really sad. I’ll say again, I’m not defending her or the book. But what it says in the book is not open to dispute or interpretation. You’re dead wrong, now let’s see if you have enough class to admit it.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I don’t remember exactly when I read “The Fountainhead.” I’m pretty sure it was some time after college; I know I wasn’t ever assigned it in a class. My two takeaways were boredom and annoyance; boredom at the bad storytelling, and annoyance at the obnoxious assertions.
Pick the greatest capitalist you can imagine. The greatest thinker. Got them in your head? Good. Now imagine them picking berries, freezing their skin off at night and running for their lives trying to avoid getting eaten by a bear, because without the collective strength offered by the group, no individual would be anything more than another link in the food chain. Maybe a high link, but a link nonetheless.
There is not one great figure of history, not Plato, Caesar, Michelangelo or even Rand herself, who wasn’t nurtured by their community. There is no art, architecture, science without a community. The Empire State Building would not have been built, the Divine Comedy not written. Michelangelo may have made his sculptures (and they are magnificent.) Who would have looked at them?
Even the pyramids needed slave labor.
Mankind’s greatest invention — the thing that allowed him to become more than just another animal and harness his mind toward even greater things — is society itself. John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates would be nothing without a stable society.
And Rand’s philosophy spits at society on every page. And that sneering contempt provided cover for a generation of government-is-bad bashing that made the levers of our government finally so impotent they couldn’t even arrest the growth a painfully obvious threat to the economy and the nation’s stability like the housing bubble.
It’s fine and right to laud the individual. But to have contempt for the society that allows that individual to flourish, to suggest that anybody who isn’t some Nietzschean uber-man is a moocher or a looter, is itself contemptible. The best want to leave society? And do what? What if society were to abandon them? How smart would Lloyd Blankfein look standing in the waters off the Hamptons in a loincloth trying to catch fish with a wooden spear? Not too smart.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
“She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the “welfare” state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts. For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the root of all evil, self-interest is the only good, and if you’re dumb or incompetent that’s your lookout.”
November 16th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Good Job Barry,
Objectivisum is the lowest order of thinking, and is nothing new from the fist time Kunckle Draggers put Charcoal to cave Wall. It’s just the newest Rationalization for it.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Nice Rand Take down.
It was much needed.
Those people are idiots.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
To summarize (comment 170):
Thanks to all who contributed
November 16th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
> Anytime I see a parked car with a John Galt bumper sticker,
> I like to knock off one of the sideview mirrors, and leave it on
> the hood. I include a note stating my selfish, random act made
> me feel good, and therefore should be a perfectly fine act in their world.
I am not seeing the irony, perhaps someone could enlighten me? I don’t understand your point.
Rand’s third principle of Objectivism is that of rational self-interest – neither sacrificing yourself to others nor requiring others to sacrifice themselves to you. The fourth principle is that each individual has an inalieanable moral right to his own judgment. The fundamental right is the right to life and the rights derived thereof – the right to liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.
To an Objectivist, the act of destroying someone’s personal property without their permission is attacking their basic, moral rights (property being the extension of the right to life). It also requires that they sacrifice themselves to you since your act of violence made you feel better, but you did not obtain their prior permission to allow them to agree before acting upon an intrusion of their rights but expect them to accept it.
Thus, I’m not sure how irony is being defined here. To me this seems to be the same as serving an Orthodox Jew a dish consisting of ham, bacon and pork chops. You are doing something that contradicts their basic beliefs.
But it’s not irony.
~~~
BR: Try not to be so literal — it is sarcasm
November 17th, 2009 at 5:02 am
[...] “Ayn Rand: The Boring Bitch is Back“, Barry Ritholtz, The Big Picture, 15 November 2009 — Excerpt: I haven’t read [...]
November 17th, 2009 at 9:50 am
It absolutely amazes me that people can read something and completely not understand what they have read.
I recently sent Atlas Shrugged to a friend who sent me this blog post. This author and the author of the article he references did not “get” the key points of Rand. They not only didn’t get her, but they cannot grasp the nature of the world around them. Here are a couple quick points off the top of my head after a quick read, from a horrible analytical piece:
• We do not live in a Free Market, though Rand imagines it for us in her writings.
• Greenspan, while originally a Rand disciple and author of a couple essays included in her non-fiction books, abandoned his own philosophy, only to make a half-hearted attempt at regaining it well into his terms as Fed Chairman. Remember when he wanted to peg the dollar against not just gold, but a basket of commodities? That was him trying to regain a philosophical position, but by then he had sold his soul.
• Unions, by their very design, are not free men joining together. They are groups of thugs.
• “Cooperative behavior” is at the soul of the entire game for her. To not understand that means you really need to go back to elementary school reading comprehension class. The corollary: you can’t cheat an honest man.
• Rand doesn’t hate god. She treats god with the same interest we treat other mythological deities (with disinterest, that is). Indifference is not hate.
These were among the most egregious errors the author made, but by no means the only ones. So many errors of comprehension in such a short space. . .
Rand’s writings do not describe as things are, but as they should be (her words). She invented fictional worlds in which she would like to live.
For those who have not yet read Atlas Shrugged, there are two places I would direct your attention when you do get the chance to read it. When you get to Galt’s Gulch you will begin to understand how things are supposed to work in a free, capitalistic world. When you leave you are sad. Examine that feeling when you get it.
When you get to Galt’s Speech read it carefully. It explains not only the basics of philosophy but the flaws in one of the major religions and the evil most espouse in the name of “good”. Galt’s Speech is extremely difficult to read and fully comprehend. I believe it took her 3 years to write; it has taken me several readings to understand.
While she considered herself a fiction writer first, in many of her works Rand had to break new philosophical ground because the characters in her mind needed a firm foundation for their ways of being that did not exist. Galt’s Speech deals with metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, the three building blocks of all philosophy. In that speech Rand shows how Plato’s metaphysics were flawed but Aristotle corrected it. She shows how using epistemology to back track into Aristotle broke the logic chain and gave us such disastrous philosophies as Kant, Heisenberg, Hegel and Marx. The Enlightenment was doomed because of these guys’ writings, but her work on epistemology, described for the first time in Atlas Shrugged, broke their strangle hold on men’s minds and freed them to pursue greatness once again. Whether man chooses (chooses, mind you) to be great is one of this age’s great unwritten endings. The result hasn’t been yet determined.
Sure, she was a child of the Soviet Dis-Union and grasping essential truths of an evil system in an 11 time zone gulag was quite a feat itself. She railed against it as anyone would rail against a tormentor, but that just helped her focus her analysis rather than affect it.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:36 am
(the last part of my comment was cut off–see the previous post for the rest).
In all her writings she is ruthlessly logical. After you get through Atlas Shrugged there are a number of books that are more approachable with shorter essays rather than thousand page tomes. Including articles by Greenspan.
Finally, the stupidity of damaging someone’s car because it makes you feel good misses the entire point of property rights and the rule of law. It just goes to show that someone can read something and have no idea what they just read.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
The best part is that those that think “I understand the Deep Thoughts of her writings, and you don’t”, and are so literal and don’t understand Irony!
In fact it’s ironic that they don’t get the irony!
November 18th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Today’s post about Rand was great. Bergsten’s reply was also fantastic. It appears that your marionette/instigation skills are improving rapidly over the TBP audience.
You have created a bias laboratory. The ARA post comments to me are a microcosm of the political dysfunction in our society. Knee-jerk reactions, hyperbolic arguments, inflamed tempers and damaged egos abound. Is it possible that these behaviors are a symptom of a larger sociopolitical disease/dysfunction?
It appears we are stuck with this dysfunction until a new generation of more moderate souls can shape our nation. We could be waiting a while with our expected demographic trends.
I am prone to similar behaviors as discussed above. Fortunately the older I get the more I realize how these behaviors will handicap the USA in future growth. Less testosterone might also be helping me too.
Americans spend so much time and energy fighting over things that will never change or if changed will likely not be worth the fight. Both political parties seem to prey upon this relationship to sustain their survival.
Instead we should create a national Venn Diagram to specify and overlay problems, solutions, financial yield and political mandate to drive political and business investment(I would call this a true mandate)? Let us focus on developing and implementing solutions for issues that we do agree upon and let time provide the salve for our disagreements. Actual progress that people can agree upon just might soothe our collectively damaged egos. Rhetoric is bandied about when solutions are needed.
Graphical data analyses shown on TBP helped me conceive of this VD model. Your comments are much appreciated.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Does Ayn Rand Hurt the Libertarian Cause?
“…A grimly precocious, friendless Rand declared her atheism at age 13. …and in 1964 she told Playboy that those who place friends and family first in life are “immoral” and “emotional parasites…”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525702581182272.html