More libertarian lulz (WSJ)

[Kestastrophe]

Is Rand Relevant?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123698976776126461.html#mod=todays_us_opinion

Ayn Rand died more than a quarter of a century ago, yet her name appears regularly in discussions of our current economic turmoil. Pundits including Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli urge listeners to read her books, and her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," is selling at a faster rate today than at any time during its 51-year history.

There's a reason. In "Atlas," Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar?

The novel's eerily prophetic nature is no coincidence. "If you understand the dominant philosophy of a society," Rand wrote elsewhere in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," "you can predict its course." Economic crises and runaway government power grabs don't just happen by themselves; they are the product of the philosophical ideas prevalent in a society -- particularly its dominant moral ideas.

Why do we accept the budget-busting costs of a welfare state? Because it implements the moral ideal of self-sacrifice to the needy. Why do so few protest the endless regulatory burdens placed on businessmen? Because businessmen are pursuing their self-interest, which we have been taught is dangerous and immoral. Why did the government go on a crusade to promote "affordable housing," which meant forcing banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers? Because we believe people need to be homeowners, whether or not they can afford to pay for houses.

The message is always the same: "Selfishness is evil; sacrifice for the needs of others is good." But Rand said this message is wrong -- selfishness, rather than being evil, is a virtue. By this she did not mean exploiting others à la Bernie Madoff. Selfishness -- that is, concern with one's genuine, long-range interest -- she wrote, required a man to think, to produce, and to prosper by trading with others voluntarily to mutual benefit.

Rand also noted that only an ethic of rational selfishness can justify the pursuit of profit that is the basis of capitalism -- and that so long as self-interest is tainted by moral suspicion, the profit motive will continue to take the rap for every imaginable (or imagined) social ill and economic disaster. Just look how our present crisis has been attributed to the free market instead of government intervention -- and how proposed solutions inevitably involve yet more government intervention to rein in the pursuit of self-interest.

Rand offered us a way out -- to fight for a morality of rational self-interest, and for capitalism, the system which is its expression. And that is the source of her relevance today.

 

People aren't taking issue with the pursuit of "one's genuine long-range interest", but instead are taking issue with the money that is being made at the expense of the general public and the lack of due diligence on behalf of the banking industry as a whole to take measures that preserve shareholder wealth. I am about sick of Randian evocations as relevant

[Eric P]

there is no way the wsj was this consistently wacky before it was under murdoch, right?

[Kestastrophe]

I don't know, I've only had my subscription for a year. They do print some wacky shit though, including regular opinion pieces from Karl rove 

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

I like how they just ignored events from 1980 to 2008.

So I'm guessing this means conservatives now are trying to forget the era of Reagan?  Awesome.

[Barry Egan]

This ahistorical dogmatic approach to human affairs that leaves out psychology completely doesn't work, let's replace it with an ahistorical dogmatic approach to human affairs that leaves out psychology completely

nail. head.

[GilloD]

This is like. It's 1946. And the WSJ published an article called "What's up with those Jews?".

I just fucking love that this article is like "WE HAVE TOO MANY REGULATIONS AND AREN'T GREEDY ENOUGH". Time and place, fucking really.

[Propagandhim]

This is like. It's 1946. And the WSJ published an article called "What's up with those Jews?".

I just fucking love that this article is like "WE HAVE TOO MANY REGULATIONS AND AREN'T GREEDY ENOUGH". Time and place, fucking really.

I was about to say...

[Dickie Dee]

there is no way the wsj was this consistently wacky before it was under murdoch, right?

The ed pages have always been ridiculous, sub-Murdoch even. The main worry is that he'll fuckup they're past high-quality news reporting

[Eric P]

wait, aren't the staff editorials anonymous?  could we just be getting trolled for laughs?

[Phoenix Dark]

Companies are in the business of making a profit. That's their job, and it's certainly not immoral. What's immoral is the abuse of business that goes on in many sectors, hence the problem with the article. Regulation isn't meant to curve growth, it's meant to ensure responsible growth and practices that don't fuck shit up. The situation we're in now is a testament to that. Letting companies run amok doesn't end well. There should be regulations, and the companies themselves have an obligation to keep things honest as well. The banks/wall street were operating on short term plans that ultimately ruined their companies. That's not smart business; it's a crisis of management, people who saw what was going on and did nothing. 

[Flannel Boy]

I think we should all act in our rational long-term self-interest all the time.

Sucks for those who can't: children, the poor, elderly, handicapped, etc.
Sucks for those who are unable to determine what is in actually their rational self-interest: everyone else
Sucks for those who don't like vague standards to live by (what exactly is my rational self-interest?): everyone.
Sucks for those whose interests ever conflict: everyone.

[Draft]

there is no way the wsj was this consistently wacky before it was under murdoch, right?

The ed pages have always been ridiculous, sub-Murdoch even. The main worry is that he'll fuckup they're past high-quality news reporting

Yeah.

WSJ op/ed page has always been a home to genuinely crazy people.

[recursivelyenumerable]

Why did the government go on a crusade to promote "affordable housing," which meant forcing banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers? Because we believe people need to be homeowners, whether or not they can afford to pay for houses.

wait what does that have to do with altruism again?

[Kestastrophe]

Why do you say the last 95 years?
I believe that the No. 1 cause of the current crisis is Federal Reserve policy. [The Federal Reserve was created in 1913.] The Federal Reserve, by necessity, creates economic problems; no matter how good a Federal Reserve chairman is, he's going to create cycles of booms and busts.

How did the Federal Reserve create today's mess?
The current crisis was caused by the housing bubble, and the primary cause of the housing bubble was the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates at 1 percent in 2003. They were asking people to borrow money, basically begging them. The financial problem we face today was a problem of overleverage, of too much debt—but that's exactly what Federal Reserve policy encouraged.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/173514

That ex ante excess of savings propelled global long-term interest rates progressively lower between early 2000 and 2005.

That decline in long-term interest rates across a wide spectrum of countries statistically explains, and is the most likely major cause of, real-estate capitalization rates that declined and converged across the globe, resulting in the global housing price bubble

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672965066989281.html

 
contradictions, contradictions, contradictions