Keynes is a disaster and confuses cause with effect. Most of the economist focus on production and trade, which also confuses cause with effect. Overall economics is wasteland and not a science.

My thinking on economics draws from Rand and collection of other economists, many of whom I do not agree with overall but have specific insights that are gems. If you are interested see my book and lecture both entitled Source of Economic Growth.

You are absolutely right in your last paragraph.

I apologize for mistaking your intent. I, like Rand, firmly believe that there is an objective reality independent of any subjective reality experienced or "perceived" by any individual, and that that reality is capable of being known by humans. In fact, that is the only "sane" method of controlling our environment.

Rand developed her philosophy partly as a response to the absurd malignancy of 19th century European philosophy, wherein it was maintained that reality could not be known by man with certainty, or even that reality could be different for different individuals. That is a sick format, and if it were true, would have prevented the evolution of the species as we know it.

Dr Morris Massey, eh? I've never heard of him but evidence suggests that he is brilliant!

I disagree. But I don't have time to elaborate just yet. I don't think the laissez-faire establishment is quite ready for some of my solutions.

You must remember, that unlike Rand's thinking, not all businessmen engage in sound business practices. Sure, the market has some built-in bulwarks for the excesses of errant capitalism, but it is hardly complete.

I started my research with international capital flows and their relation to Current Account, or global trade and commerce.

just like I approach any new book with skepticism and let the
author lead me into confidence that there's value there! -- j
.

It could almost have come from Rand's Philosophy Who Needs It.

Hi MountainLady, sometimes it's hard to follow where a reply fits into the thread, but I think this was in reply to my post, "I would like to see Gulchers engage more in independent thinking, instead of relying on "permission" by Rand."

I had written, "Denying emotions would be anti-objectivist because we're not permitted to deny reality." When I wrote that we're not permitted to deny reality I didn't mean to imply "permission" by Rand, but rather what is required by Objectivism (if it is one's intent to be an Objectivist).

The philosophy of Objectivism does not allow for denying reality. It also does not allow for belief in the supernatural. Those two statements seem like they're the same at first, but they aren't. A person who denies reality or accepts the supernatural is not, by definition, an Objectivist. There's no judgement implied by that statement; it's true in the same way that a rose is not a water buffalo.

Nevertheless, independent thought is critical. Ayn Rand would be horrified to think that someone was reading her books and accepting what she said on blind faith. Faced with that and a second person who denied her on blind faith I'm confident she would prefer the latter.

I have even tried to leave Rand behind, in here, by speaking
about building a bridge to Christianity. . it didn't work. -- j
.

you remind me of Dr Morris Massey whose teachings
about how people form their value systems early in life, say
between the ages of 5 and 15, show that their values are fairly stable
unless they are modified by a "significant emotional event" -- his term --
and it makes sense in my experience. -- j

p.s. I didn't mean to say that emotions are grounded
in reality, just that they arise from the mind -- maybe
heavily weighted toward the subconscious, a melting pot
for the mind, in my view, of the sum of life's experiences.
.
.

I believe the Great Depression was a product of government involvement in economics. From my studies, economics in America were fairly stable until after the Civil War at which time government started playing games with our monetary system. Then, increased meddling in 1913 with the income tax and the creation of the Federal Reserve led to the Great Depression. IMHO, economics takes care of itself if left without government control and we would be better if we when back to that system.

Oi DBH, Nope, I knew who you were replying to. I was just referencing what you wrote to explain why I wasn't writing more about emotions - I haven't studied the Objectivist view.

P.S. My proof-reading skills are all warmed up!

Hello dbhalling,
That is a fantastic quote! And now the masses are slaves to Keynes! How sickly poetic? He would probably find it ironic, but would he admit he was defunct?
Respectfully,
O.A.

Hello johnpe1,
Perhaps these "conservatives" of which you speak, are not as "conservative" as believed? Perhaps they don't fit the traditional definition, or precisely in this or that box... Our language... our labels are losing their specificity and precision. So many work to break it down it is a wonder we can do more than grunt at one another nowadays...
Still, to adopt the label and keep it is to accept its history and baggage... Do you accept all? Do you know all?
We should probably consider our desire to fit into any of these collective boxes. What we should strive for is to be an independent objective thinker and recognize that your interest here in the Gulch, is pretty good evidence that you, the reader, is not buying the whole "conservative" ideology. Thus, you may be putting yourself needlessly in a box.

Who here is not individual enough to consider leaving behind such confines?
Respectfully,
O.A.

I had to read that a few times before I understood it. I THINK I understood it.

Although I am not a Keynesian economist, I have found that he has been able to ascertain some aspects of human nature better than most economists. He worked in a time when the Great Depression set classical economics on its head---none could explain the inability of the market to right itself.

I'm more inclined to go along with the Monetarists, Friedman and Schwarz, though I don't always agree with them, either. I add Richard Koo (The Holy Grail of Macroeconomics) and start my thinking from there.

I'm all for independent thinking and I do lots of it, but this is an Objectivist forum and I strongly prefer to make Objectivist arguments here. I studied Rand, including reading the novels, for nearly a yearlong stretch. I enjoyed it and I learned a lot, but I found academic themed works like "Epistomology etc etc" to be quite a challenge in some places (see, I can't even remember the title properly!) After that one I needed a break.

I have my thoughts on emotions but in order for me to write something coherent I'd need a very specific place to start, and even then I'd probably end up with musings rather than a finished product.

johnpe notes that Rand believed that emotions are grounded in the mind, in rationality. My own musings would certainly agree that they're grounded in the mind; they'd have to be because the mind is housed in the brain and that is our only organ allows us to experience anything at all. Without it the nervous system could do nothing more than react automatically to external stimuli. Saying that emotions are grounded in reality, however, is not self-evident to me so I would have to hear her reasoning.

(Continuing briefly on johnpe's post, I don't see how emotions being grounded in the mind/reality and also revealing the inner self are mutually exclusive. A very clear definition of terms would be critically important to that discussion.

Does Rand, or do we, define MIND as only the conscious operations of our brains or do we include the unconscious or the subconscious? Let's assume we consider the subconscious as part of the mind. I propose that the products of the subconscious are based on our entire life's experience, but that early life influences it MUCH more than later life, so the older we get the less our subconscious will evolve without a significant act of will. But I further propose that our subconscious "knowledge" is acquired without regard to our usual filters. It forms without our direct input, so it is based on reality but certainly not constrained by reality. (I'm petrified of spiders, but that didn't happen until after I was 9 or 10. I don't have an irrational fear of any other critter, only spiders. Why?)

Enough musings for now!

Why do you say: "We're not permitted..."

I would like to see Gulchers engage more in independent thinking, instead of relying on "permission" by Rand.

Timelord, I think you have mistaken who my comment was directed to. I was, responding to MountainLady. It looks like I screwed up and hit the wrong reply button - sorry about that.

I agree completely with your analysis.
"I'm not sure I agree with that. Denying emotions would be anti-objectivist because we're not permitted to deny reality. We experience emotions because we're human but we should try not to be guided by them."

I tend to despise Keynes, if you want to honor connotations,
though my brother-in-law who has studied more econ than I have,
says that today's practice of his government-controlled
economics is heavily distorted. . this quote does carry some
serious import, though -- except for the heavy distortion
which people downstream exert on the influences of
philosophers and economists. . like interpretations of
the koran, distortions can lead to pure evil. -- j
.

Timelord, have you done any analysis on your own?

I'm thinking independent thinking here. You can then read Rand and engage in comparative analysis.

I had an extended argument with a shrink over this --
as I contended, like AR, that emotions are grounded in
the mind, in rationality. . she contended that emotions
reveal the inner self, separate from the mind. . it was an
endless discussion. . I left. -- j
.

John I think you need to think about this statement:

“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist (philosopher).”

John Maynard Keynes

those attempt to draw the reader's attention towards the
present-day relevance of "conservative" -- a term which identifies
people who are much more amenable to objectivists
than liberals or progressives or socialists or communists
or Marxists or whomever. . if we have a central mission here,
is it not the sustenance and expansion of objectivist thought?
I know that it is valuable to draw contrasts between the good
and the bad -- in definition and praise of the good -- and yet,
collateral damage is also pertinent. . intentionally tossing out
everyone who identifies with the term "conservative" is unwise,
in my judgment. -- j
.
.

"No one is exclusively guided by reason." I'm not sure I agree with that. Denying emotions would be anti-objectivist because we're not permitted to deny reality. We experience emotions because we're human but we should try not to be guided by them.

I won't go further on the subject because (to dbhalling) I haven't read Rand's explanation of emotions, or if I did I don't remember it.

Have you read Ayn Rand's explanation of emotions?

No one is exclusively guided by reason. That is inhuman---(see Mr Spock).

We all must be aware of what we are feeling, what our emotion is, before we are able to engage our ability to reason. If not, then like beasts, we will act impulsively.