'Atlas Shrugged' author sees resurgence
 

'Atlas Shrugged' author sees resurgence

I've read this, many years ago. Have you read it?

I've read Anthem (in HS). There is a wild rumo(u)r, that they might make Atlas Shrugged into a movie. I guess there has been no interest in making it into a movie...until now:haha:.

I've read all her novels except We The Living. Nice to see she's making a comeback.

"'Atlas Shrugged' author sees resurgence"

The author was Ayn Rand and since she died in 1982, I seriously doubt that the author is seeing any resurgence, or anything at all.

More outstanding grammar from the "journalists" at CNN :nope:

It is getting quite entertaining to count the spelling and grammatical errors in articles published by CNN. :yep:

It seems strange to me that people should turn to Ayn Rand for hope.

An American bought me Atlas Shrugged as a gift a few years ago. I had never heard of it before that. I started reading it and got bored less than half way in, so I stopped reading it and turned to Wikipedia for the short version. There I learned that the book is just a vehicle for Ayn Rand's "philosophy" which is called Objectivism, which is basically laissez faire economics i.e. ultra-capitalism. I gather Objectivism isn't taken very seriously anywhere outside of the US.

Anyway, as I was saying, it seems strange to me that people should look for hope in that book. Isn't it capitalism that got us into this economic mess in the first place? Is this just a case of the American people "running home to mama"?

/facepalm

I wonder how much effect the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights has had in this "sudden" increase?

No.

depending on how you look at it.

in my mind, capitalism is focused on one's own ability to make money, keep it, and use it at their will. And to do it by any means possible.

this makes greed, and recently some have been a little hasty in getting a loan for a house, because, thats pretty much where it all started. after the housing maket started to tumble, it seemed pretty inevitable that we
are where we are now.

Capitalism->Greed->hasty spending->economic downturn->(bush, IMO)->today's economic situation

Greed is the nesessary(i could never spell that right) evil behind a great idea like capitalism. some minds can twist the thing into something that makes for their profit (Ron Madoff comes to mind) at the expense of others.
correction to earlier statement
Greed in high places -> economic downturn -> today's economic situation

That is funny. I have just started reading this book. It is one of the best books I have read and I wish it was required reading in all of our schools.

It seems that way on the face of it, doesn't it? However, that is not the case, imo.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the first to go under, and Fannie Mae actually created the secondary mortgage market as we know it today. Some point to the fact that they became publicly-traded companies in the late 70's as evidence that they are no longer GSE's, but they are. They are still very much in the thrall of Government management, and are still accountable to the same, hence their promotion of "affordable" housing loans ( by purchasing subprimes from banks)
Of course, if you're a bank, and there is a huge market for risky subprimes, and some idiot offers to buy any subprime deals you close, what reason would you have for not pursuing that market? Fiscally, it would be foolish not to do so. It's like free money.

The state artificially created a market, and private industry siezed upon it when the time was right (influx of low-income families). As with many crises, the fault resides with the state for messing around with the market system to accomplish political objectives. In this case, the desire to use the market to make housing affordable for low-income citizens created an investment bubble that could not be sustained. After all, what happens when those low-income families default?
Normally, banks would avoid high-risk loans, because they aren't worth the risk, even though the interest rates are higher. But once you add in the magic of GSEs that guarantee those loans, they become a lot more attractive, and a lot more dangerous to the taxpayers.

The free market works because it relies upon the direct input of consumers and generates the appropriate output. Usually, it cannot do otherwise, because if it does the offending entities are driven from the market. Government is supposed to plug the widest gaps in the system; fraud and harmful monopoly. When it oversteps those bounds, and becomes involved with the market in a more direct capacity, it creates this kind of harm. In some cases, business takes advantage of legislative authority to eliminate competition. In others, the government is simply incompetent and creates problems that would not otherwise exsist.

The market cannot be controlled or eliminated. It will always find a way because it is a product of the indestructible human quality of self-interest.
This is beneficial, because a normal market requires mutually beneficial exchange. The state does not require such an exchange. It works in the same capacity as a street thug; "Your money or your life". Sure, you have a choice, but it isn't much of one, is it? Worse yet, the state is not immune to self-interest, at any level.

Utilized properly(read very limited, in writing), this kind of force monopoly can serve a constructive purpose; "Only engage in mutually beneficial trade or be destroyed"
Unfortunately, it has been perverted in many cases to read "Engage in socially constructive behavior or be destroyed", with "socially constructive" left to the open interpretation of politicians. Liars by trade. What they can do with that kind of policy to serve their self-interest is limited only by how well they can lie. Their policies not only have the potential to make business less competitive, they can help to give it legislative power, which is decidedly undesireable.

Quite simply, the market is preferable to the state wherever possible, and the state is not to be trusted or left to its' own devices. Wherever there are gross inequities or problems with the market, the state can be found. It destroys competition and distorts the market process.
Those states which embrace free trade are almost always more proseprous than those that do not, and amongst them, the states that regulate the least tend to produce higher GDP per capita, PPP, and higher living standards.

I could go on, but I trust the point is made, or at least sufficiently clear to warrant discussion.

@UnderseaLcpl

I take your point: the bubble was made by the government interfering in the market in order to meet an objective. The objective was to make housing affordable to Joe Regular. Now, what caused houses to become unaffordable to Joe Regular in the first place? Capitalist economics.

We can go round and round like this if you like.

Is housing inherently affordable without capitalism? Is unaffordable housing even a problem? I can't afford a house, so I split a rental house with two others. That seems to be working out okay, at least until I have enough capital to buy one.


I'm curious though, as to what system you would like to see in its' place.

Is housing inherently affordable without capitalism?

Yes, actually, provided that (a) there are enough houses for people to live in and (b) the population is fairly stable. Both of these are true in most (if not all) "western" nations. In fact, as has been pointed out in another thread, many European nations are reliant on immigration to keep the population in a state of equilibrium.

Once a house is built, the only "real" cost (i.e. material cost) associated with it is in it's upkeep.

Is unaffordable housing even a problem? I can't afford a house, so I split a rental house with two others. That seems to be working out okay, at least until I have enough capital to buy one.

If the house price trend had continued it would ultimately have led to a situation where normal people would have no hope of ever affording a house (in fact it was starting to get that way already, at least here in the UK, and may yet end up getting there in spite of this hiccup). There would end up being a dividing line between the haves and the have-nots, with the former gradually accumulating all the properties and the latter funding that accumulation with rent, and the end result being a society split neatly in half. One "half" would be much bigger than the other, of course, and people in the big half (the have-nots) would effectively constitute a sub-class.

Renting might be fine for you now (I assume you're young and single) but would you be happy raising kids in a rented house, when that time comes? Would it be OK having to move your whole family to a new house on the whim/luck of your landlord? Not to mention the various law changes that are always going on with tenancy agreements (which could also result in you having to move unexpectedly) and the fact that you'd be piss-poor and have no chance of leaving your kids any inheritance.

When it comes to "settling down" most people want a place that's theirs so that they can tell themselves that, no matter what happens, that roof will stay over their heads. Of course there are no absolute guarantees in life, but that doesn't stop people wanting to get as close as they can to an absolute guarantee... and rent just isn't close enough for most, IMO.

I'm curious though, as to what system you would like to see in its' place.

I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm just not ultra-capitalist.

Interesting points, OLC, but I'm having trouble seeing things from your perspective.
The flaws you mention in the housing market (spiraling prices, polarization of ownership along class lines, unstable tenancy agreements for renters) are not things I have seen in the U.S. Perhaps it is so in the U.K., but the U.S. has actually experienced plummeting hosuing prices due to oversupply. I don't generally see evidence of a tendency towards a class split in free housing markets, either. We have a large middle class that generally has pretty decent housing. By contrast, the absolute worst housing we have exsists in places where the government regulates or provides housing. Public housing, rent-controls, housing initiatives, invariably all slums.

I'm not sure renting is the minefield you describe, either. I don't move anywhere on the whims of a landlord, she's bound by the same contract I am, and has to pay me a fee if she terminates it early, just like I do. I also want to own a house, but even that isn't much different from renting. I still have to pay rent to the government in the form of property tax. They actually can evict me pretty much whenever they want, and if I miss rent it is a felony.
Renting and not having a family lets me save money so I can afford a house and a family someday. I find that preferable to relying on taxpayers
to subsidize my ambitions, unlike some people in this country.

I just go on and on don't I? Last thing, I promise. I'm still not sure I understand your views correctly, so I will pose my last question again. What system would you prefer if not the free market? Even I am aware of the need for some regulation, perhaps you have some good ideas for appropriate regulation?

Good ideas? No, not really! ;)