Ayn Rand killed the American dream: Our free-market economy only works for the 1 percent
Posted by ShrugInArgentina 8 years, 10 months ago to Economics
This article starts with a quote from a book titled "Altruism" and in the first paragraph notes that for (George) Soros, "if the doctrine of economic laissez- faire — a term dear to philosopher Ayn Rand — had been submitted to the rigors of scientific and empirical research, it would have been rejected a long time ago."
If the the preset economic system in the USA was "submitted to the rigors of scientific and empirical research" the assertion that it is an example of laissez-Faire capitalism is what would have to be rejected.
If the the preset economic system in the USA was "submitted to the rigors of scientific and empirical research" the assertion that it is an example of laissez-Faire capitalism is what would have to be rejected.
In the wildest stretch of the imagination there is nothing about this economy that resembles a "free market."
In the early 1800s exclusive contract to the waterways around new york for steam ships was given to one aristocratic family. Later when Vanderbilt started to run "illegal shipping" into new york and became associated with Gibbons. Vanderbilt suggested he continue his actions until the Livingston file suite against him to stop him. It was also suggested by a late teen Vanderbilt that the exclusive restriction placed by the government was unconstitutional to Gibbons. Gibbons jumped on the idea. The eventual result was Gibbons vrs Ogden in which the supreme court ruled the exclusive contract was unconstitutional.
The actions of Vanderbilt created a friendship between Gibbons and the would be tycoon. Vanderbilt looked at Gibbons much as one would a father. Vanderbilt and his ability are much the reason we had any free markets at all. He beat steamship ventures over and over again that were subsidized by the state of new York. He beat out subsidized railway later in his life and refused to take government monies unless it was in the form of a contract for services rendered to the government.
The fact that law worked based on constitution rather than case law an we had a businessmen with principles who lived by them is why we had a free market for a while. Others would pick up the Vanderbilt way of doing business and it would be keep us free for a while.
New York state attempted to (through is corrupt government leaders) in 1962 to collapse Vanderbilt railways by doing an attack on his stock. They did it by shortselling shares they did not have. Vanderbilt bought up the short sales and every other piece stock on the market, This caused his stock to increase rather than decrease and left the politicians holding an empty bag and owning him the shares they did not have. Today this is illegal to do, then it was a free market and Vanderbilt proved that a person could defend against it.
I am reading "The first Tycoon" right now and its a great book. It has changed by view of early America because the market was not kept free by government but by constitutional law and a man willing to fight for a free market. I recommend the book.
IMO, modern economic theory (and The Founders were profound thinkers and theorists) lagged the American Revolution by about 150 years. Had the Founders had the economic theories of the classical economists, and the Austrians, at least up to and including Mises' "Theory of Money and Credit", available to them, The Constitution would been much stronger on property rights, government interference in any way in the markets, and strict and total non-involvement with money and banking.
I always found it ironic that Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nation" was first published in 1776...
I recall reading essays in the 1970's in which Ayn Rand extolled the virtues of laissez- faire capitalism while denouncing the evils of a mixed or controlled economy. She made it clear that capitalism was being blamed for the negative consequences of government intervention and that the attacks against capitalism were being made by the advocates of even grater intervention.
It's worth noting that in the opening (quoted) paragraph the author of Altruism, Matthieu Ricard, committed the unspeakable heresy of referring to Ayn Rand as a philosopher.
Very well said.
analysis, Herb, is direct, succinct, accurate and
focused. . I love it!!! -- j
.
The similarities between the power grid model and the global economic model are clear and raises the question, should production be driven by demand or should demand be driven by production? The parallels with a central planning versus a true free market system are obvious.
The problem with his examples is that the costs are not all captured in the prices. Milton Friedman understood this, and coined the term "involuntary servitude or conscription" or "involuntary costs". These are costs to people who did not agree to them. Air/Water/Noise Pollution is one example. Another would the the taking of an endangered species.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with paying a woman to have a tattoo on her forehead for $10K. That is just an agreement which both parties agree. The reverse example for socialists is free plastic surgery for the rich.
I think we should write a rebuttal called "Lazy Fare".
The author would probably prefer to invest in organic farming, give the girl a job, and she'd run away to the city for the $8k.
There is no such thing as the well-being of the community as a whole. If that is your aim, you are lost before you being. case closed.
More when I return this weekend. But it seems to me there is a marked increase in anti-Rand rants over the recent past. I see that as excellent news...they are aware of her ever-growing influence (and the ever-diminishing influence of the Left), and like cornered rats they have no choice but to lash out. I haven't read the article yet..but if it isn't a rehash of every criticism I've read over the past 40+ years, I'd be surprised...
Everybody has one........
Soros, the man who destroyed the Pound Sterling, who worked with the Nazis against his fellow Jews, is not to be trusted.
The American Dream the author speaks of is that of FDR and the 'rights to have' rather than the 'rights to do', and I don't think AR even wounded it. It's alive and well today.
Ricard quotes Soros as saying, "The doctrine of laissez-Faire capitalism holds that the common good is best served by the uninhibited pursuit of self-interest." I'm sure there are some voluntary market economists who take this position, but it is not the one that Rand takes. She makes no claim as to what best serves the "common good." She was not a utilitarian.
has not been tried and then failed; it has not been
tried. We had a partially free economy once, but
it was never fully free. Then, too, the government
is not supposed to take an economic system, give it a name (Laissez-faire, or anything else).,
and then impose it as a political system. Man
is supposed to be free, and have his rights as
an individual recognized; and then laissez-
faire follows. Thus, freedom, and prosperity.
We really didn't have to take anything that crowd says seriously.
'Nuff said.
The constant references to banks and "deregulation."
Have they forgotten Dodd Frank and the Government bail out of banks and all the Government help to banks. That is in no way Laissez-Faire.
Laissez-Faire would mean that there would have been NO bailout, the Banks would be bankrupt and the system would have reset itself properly.
The simple fact that George Soros is cited is enough to cause one to burn BEFORE reading.
The closest thing we've ever had to a true free-market economy was the last half of the 19th century in America. And that time saw the greatest improvement in the lot of the common man and greatest period of philanthropic giving in our history.
How many times must statism/liberalism/socialism/communism fail before they're permanently resigned to the ash heap of history???
If only they cared about journalistic integrity.
.