I realize its been a week and half since this was posted but I just have to respond.

The best mixed economies that has ever existed have been the one built by the German Socialist National Workers Party. The result was one of two that a mixed economy will always eventually achieve.

The US did not experience a financial collapse until after we started the move to mixed economies. Before that we were the phenom that changed the world. Why did we change it in so many ways? The answer is simple, freedom and free agency were available in greater quantities than it had been ever before or since in the world.

Consider the two systems in a simpler light from the philosophy it has at its core.

Mixed Economy
With a core principle that states in action if not in word: You can achieve to much, have to much, be to rich, be to good at what you do.

Free Market
You can be as good at something as you mind and actions allow you to be.

In the first system your punished for greatness in the second you simply have property rights.

Before you respond consider a few things.

1. You own a house, a farm... and you have to pay a lease to the government every year or they come take it away. In a free market economy this tax is reprehensible and could not be put in place. In a mixed economy your land you paid for is leased, and if the lease is not paid you loose your land. Do you really own it?

You build up a company and dominate your market because your that much better than the rest in your field. The government steps in and breaks you up, and tells you to sell of some of the pieces or you have to let others run parts of it.... do you really own your business if the government can do this to it?

You have an Inn and restaurant next to a national park. You have a lease to use some of the land in the national park for recreation (ATVing, hiking, horseback ridding....) and the lodge and restaurant are on property you own. The government shuts down and they decide that since you operate on government property you must shut down. When you refuse they put a full force of federal forest and law enforcement on your parking lot turning your customers away. Do you own the lodge or does the government? Who controls the property and who does not?

Property rights and a mixed economy cannot exist together. Without property rights you own nothing, not even yourself.

When you say a mixed economy seems to work lets just to where it eventually leads as it did in the case of the Nazi. You will eventually become a slave under the government that operates it, as nearly every person in the world is today, to some degree, of the government under which they live.

So ultimately if you opt for the mixed economy you opt for slavery under the government. You opt for a return, with some variations, to the dark ages with feudal lords (bureaucrats who set policy in different areas) and an arching roman catholic church that is beyond reproach, not because its god this time around but because its the will of the people. Governments all over the world are moving to the very model that provided the dark ages to us. Some deviation is there, but at its heart is a mixed economy between freedom and some form of collectivism.

People who hold another person up as sacred did not get the point I got out of her books.

I have not seen the Fountainhead, but I loved the book. I was less interested in Roark than the villains: Peter Keeting, Ellsworth Toohey, Gail Wynand in the beginning, and Peter's g/f at the end. I couldn't tell what she was getting at with Peter's g/f. It was like Toohey did something that sucked the life out of her.

A rational discussion has to start with the facts. Not blaming business for what government does. Not ignoring the reality of the affects of economic freedom or lack thereof, see http://www.heritage.org/index/. A rational discussion does not include the statement that Rand "faked" reality. A rational discussion cannot include shifting the blame for a crony socialist system from the source - incorrect, immoral laws to the businessmen, even if those businessmen were immoral for taking advantage of them. The ultimate source of the problem was the law and the government, not the businessmen.

Rand did not condone the actions of these railroad tycoons. This is clear from the essay and clear from AS - see James Taggart. But you have tried to use this example to condemn capitalism. Well this is not Capitalism. You have complained about income inequality. This is fine when it is the result of force (government cronyism as in the US today) but is an outrageous and immoral statement when it is part of a voluntary free market. In the case of government coercion, everybody suffers except a few elite, but in the case of a free market everyone prospers, just some more than others

Ir you want a rational discussion clearly delineate your points. Don't blame capitalism for greedy people, they exist under all forms of government. Don't blame a secondary cause, when there is a primary causes.

You have expressed this well. I wish we were all trying to make the world a better place, both capitalists and bureaucrats, but in reality, we know that this is not true. The best of us, though, are trying to make this world a better place. I want to take what each of us contribute - who are truly working for a better world - and make an amalgam that is stronger than each pure element. Ayn Rand did her part by warning that a collectivist mentality is a recipe for disaster. We also need to recognize that unbridled selfishness does not work either, no matter how rational each selfish actor is. There is no evidence that we just don't see the big picture. There has to be a balance between the individual and society. The trick is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each and improve the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses.

I am not a troll. I just want to have a rational discussion on the facts. There are many analyses and indices and they all have to be considered. I admire Rand's contributions but I think that there is more to it than what she said.

Yes, I have read most of what Ayn Rand has written, including the Fountainhead. I agree with the spirit of what she was trying to accomplish, but I am aware of her faults. I hate that she and her followers tried to turn her philosophy into a religion. As I heard one her of her followers say: There are no other Objectivists: Ayn Rand was the only Objectivist and everyone else was a student of Objectivism (I hear that from one of her followers back in the 70's). I found that too many followers of her denounced any criticisms of her as if the critics were apostates, and I am aware the Rand herself set this up by her own actions by excommunicating Nathaniel Branden - who actually had a lot of good things to contribute in the field of psychology. Philosophy is not religion, and therefore unlike religion, has these characteristics: (1) philosophy is always in the process of change (2) philosophy is always right, to the extent that it reaches new truths and (3) philosophy always wrong to the extent that it has not approached an unobtainable ideal of absolute truth.

Here is an example of where Ayn Rand fell short. I have always felt that the movie The Fouintainhead is one of the worst movies I have ever watched - and the reason why is because Ayn Rand herself wrote the screenplay. Anyone who would watch the movie and not have read the novel would be totally lost as to the motivations of the main actors because a movie can only portray pictures and expressions. But a novel can express the inner thoughts and feeling of the protagonists. Rand's screenplay does not express this inner life - as a screenplay, it is impossible, so the movie fails. Ayn Rand herself violated the rule that Howard Roark expressed in the first chapter of the Fountainhead:
"Here are my rules: what can be done with one substance must never be done with another. No two materials are alike. No two sites on earth are alike. No two buildings have the same purpose."
Well she violated her own rule by doing in a movie what she did in a novel.
I don't mind Ayn Rand her failures. She was human and fallible like the rest of us. What I do not like is that she has been turned into a God.

I think that this discussion has reached its conclusion. Neither of us can convince the other and the facts of reality are not enough to make a difference. Perhaps we are blinded by are own beliefs.

Yes. And we have to define working. If the result is higher growth with the benefits going to wealthy, that's bad because the marginal utility of wealth decreases. OTOH if you have 2% higher growth over a century, the difference in production is staggering.

This is mostly an issue I don't worry about b/c I believe gov't has limited ability help the needy and limited ability to stifle growth. Politicians will tell you they have a good job-growth policies, but I think most of it is individuals finding solutions to problems. Those people will get the job done regardless of what gov't does. Gov't and bankers are two fields that act as if they are totally behind everything in the economy; they're wrong about that.

I agree with all of this EXCEPT I don't think the gov't runs by politicians pursuing an ideology. Their supposed ideologies change. Self-serving rent-seeking behaviors emerge. It is difficult (not impossible) for the gov't to run efficiently as you describe. My wife has a master's in gov't administration and was an auditor for the WI legislature for 5 years. She has explained to me how difficult it is to apply scientific and empirical elements to gov't programs.

I agree with the tenor of what you're saying, but more and more I see gov't not doing the job it sets out to do. Once you start a spending program, it's hard to stop it. The inertia doesn't come from ideology; that would be better; it comes from all the people in the bureaucracy who are resistant to change.

I truly believe you're on the right track in saying you won't apply one model alone to any real-world system.

Because a practical application of it doesn't work does not invalidate the theory. Sometimes in engineering you know things are going on that we can't model, but you still accept the theory. I haven't read her stuff beyond AS and Fountainhead.

One issue we may be having is what "better" means. Not everyone agrees what working better looks like.

I agree with not applying Ayn Rand's theories blindly. Have you read Fountainhead?

Open your eyes. Check out the Economic freedom index. You are not serious you are a Socialist Troll

Well, good analysis Hiraghm. Welcome to not the Rise and Fall of not the Roman Empire, but of the great experiment of the US Republic, The Greek philosophers saw a reason for discussion and thinking, something that has now been replaced by passive watching of reality TV. Perhaps after four years translating works from Latin, I once had hopes for our school system and the country in general. The private college I attended was structured, both architecturally and academically on the Greek methods. Then I became a parent and the reality of the crumbing public school systems and economic systems left me wanting to fight to stop the decay. I hear a lot of philosophical excuses for why it is so and will remain so. That is not good enough, Rand warned us what was coming our way, she understood long before we did. She predicted the banning of the incandescent light bulb in "Anthem", well ahead of any science fiction movie. In that same small novel, she shows us life without books or "I". Schools are going all tablets, leaving books to those of us whose houses contain thousands of them. What is on the tablet will be the only history, the only reality - in the manner of Orwell's "1984" - since you like science fiction. Then some maniac will pull an electromagnetic event, and wipe even that out. You may term it plebeian, but talk could well be all the masses have left, and memories of philosophers to show us the way back. None of this had to happen, we let it happen, and yes, it is like an Asimov novel.

You have stated this by fiat. Can you give a logical argument to support your claim? For example, I could claim that regulation, if done correctly, is supported by scientific studies of what is the most effective action in a certain situation. This does not limit a person's mind - instead it leverages the minds of many. Now we have to ask which regulations are done correctly and which are boneheaded - but that is the topic for another debate. My question to you - by what reasoning to you claim that regulation limits the mind?

That's a curios question. As far as the IRS goes, I file as an LLC, which is a small business. Why do you ask?

You remind me of a speech by Margret Thatcher. You would rather have everyone wallow in the mud, than allow some people to become wealth. The facts are overwhelming capitalism (natural rights) is the only thing that lifted man out of the Malthusian Trap. The FDA is a disaster that has caused untold damage to millions of people. You fail to acknowledge the hidden costs, but want to count all benefits by those favored by government. This is well known fallacy. You are either uninterested in the truth or incredibly ignorant.

I absolutely agree with you. The question is - what has the sciences of economics, sociology and psychology shown that maximizes this? Simple ideals and concepts lead to sub-optimal solutions. Now on to the hard part - what works in reality?

The biggest problem with the government is that both the politicians and the bureaucracy are run as if they are quasi-religions, instead of being reality based. Every politician, when they make a claim or advocate a stance should be required to present data that supports what they say, and that their data is not skewed or fantastical. Every bureaucrat who makes a regulation or an appropriation should be audited to determine if that regulation or appropriation is worthwhile. We need accountability. There is a tremendous amount of waste in laissez faire economics too. Both are wasteful and need each other to balance their excesses. Together they are better than just one or the other.

Reality is so clear on point that if you open your eyes you would see this. Regulation does not work because it limits the fundamental tool of man's survival - his mind

Wonderful. You think your denunciation of what I said is equivalent to a response. If you disagree with me, give me facts, not opinions.
Although that period had an unprecedented growth in living standard, it was also a period where the difference between the rich and the poor was the greatest. There's something wrong with that.
And, as far as protecting the consumer, Teddy Roosevelt also gave us the FDA and the Pure Food and Drug Act.

Well, Chapter 4 certainly has some provocative analysis. I note that their analysis spans a wide variety of economic systems, which makes it hard to do a comparison. But it is important that we should not be blinded by our theories. Reality is the final arbitrator..Whether or not regulation works should be determined by the econ omic studies, not by blind faith.

Well it stands to reason that something that is a hypothetical has not been proven in reality. You will never get a pure theoretical idea in the real world. The best you can do is with what you get. So you really need to look at what has been allowed to work and not wish for a pure world that never existed. Government intervention mucks things up. Human stupidity mucks things up too. Bad weather, bad luck, disease, bad timing, economics, the phases of the moon, you name it keep interfering. What has worked in practice? That's what I'd like to know.
“When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter" - Ayn Rand

Immigration will remain high as long as free markets are denied access elsewhere. Workers will always merge to the most unrestricted society because of the abundance of employment.

Hello Roy,

I finally got out of the hospital about an hour ago and am just settling in. I'm in Reno, so thee may be a time difference depending on where you live.

I'm in the process of catching up to over a dozen calls, so I'll be in touch tomorrow. Do you have a preference on when to call you. Let me know if were talking your time zone or mine,

Fred