Ayn Rand Center - Response to Financial Crisis

There has been a lot of chatter about Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand and this (carefully orchestrated) financial crisis. Some folks were wondering what Ayn Rand would have said about it. For those intersted - The Ayn Rand Center has made a statement.

Information Here

"One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary."
—Ayn Rand, 1975

These words were written more than 30 years ago, but they apply exactly to today’s financial crisis. Today’s problems are the result of a government-controlled financial and housing system that rewarded irrational behavior and punished responsible behavior. Yet they are being blamed on “the free market”—with more controls offered as the solution.

Why? For the same reason that the controls were passed in the first place. The dominant moral and political ideas in our culture lead Americans to believe that a free market, with its unfettered pursuit of self-interest, is immoral and destructive—whereas a government that controls and manipulates the economy in some indefinable “public interest” is seen as a source of economic security and prosperity.

More information from various sources on this financial crisis (which I believe was carefully brought about by the NWO folks) and the Objectivist view of the situation -

CEO John Allison - Causes of financial collapse

Despite what the news media keep saying, capitalism and deregulation were not the causes of the financial meltdown.

Instead, BB&T CEO John Allison pointed the finger at government creations like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored enterprises that failed last year

The Objective Standard

Yaron Brook: In Atlas Shrugged we see a world crumbling under the weight of government interventions and regulations. The economy has ground to a halt. Roads and bridges are breaking down, buildings are falling apart, new inventions are few and far between, and each day more and more businesses are shutting their doors. The government blames greed and the free market, frantically imposes further controls, but the crisis only deepens.

The similarities to today are striking. Since the start of our current crisis, we’ve been told that the free market and “greedy” businessmen are to blame, and that the only solution is to hand progressively more power over to the government. We’re hearing the same charges, and seeing the same policies, with the same destructive consequences that Rand wrote about more than half a century ago.

In Atlas, we even read about a “banker with a heart of gold” who went out of business after lending to borrowers on the basis of their “need” rather than their ability to repay. Anyone who understands how the government’s “affordable housing” crusade led to an orgy of subprime lending can appreciate Rand’s foresight

BTW - Obama was part of that 'affordable housing' crusade. While he was a lawyer for the corrupt ACORN group, he sued Citibank and forced it to give housing loans to people that the bank knew couldn't pay the loans back.

Video - causes and cures of this financial crisis -
www.aynrand.org...

Business Week - The Economy Needs Ayn Rand

When this semi-collectivistic, uneconomic system blows up, should blame be placed on those issuing the orders or those forced to obey? To place primary blame on Wall Street is like blaming Russians for Communism’s failure. The fault lies not in the people but in the immoral system in which they had to act

Frankly - I blame the 'useful tools' - Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Obama, and Bush43, - as well as the entire cast of the NWO folks. This is obviously a well constructed and purposeful world financial crisis. It's to usher in the One World Currency and the NWO. Tool Bush43 paved the way, especially during his last year in office. Tool Obama is in lock step, moving the NWO agenda along rapidly.

As for Barney Frank .. he just keeps on pumping out lunacy ... and the people keep voting for him. (very, very strange).

People have offered their responses on how to fix the financial crisis. Those on the left think higher taxes and massive spending will do it. Those on the right (and the Objectivists) think that a REALLY free market with as little government restriction as possible will do it. I am of the opinion that NEITHER OF THESE can fix it because this collapse is being orchestrated by the NWO. The one world currency - that Obama's little buddy Timmy Geithner wants - is what this world collapse is all about. The 'wealth redistribution' that Obama wants is what this is all about. The UN Take Care of the Poor Tax - that the UN and Obama both want is what this is all about.

New One World currency.
End of US soverignty.
End of all soverignty of all countries.
UN Tax the money makers and redistribute the wealth.
One world government.

It's too big to fight by either 'tax and spend', or free market. Under a non-NWO situation the Ayn Rand Center would be correct in it's response to the situation. A REALLY free market is what would make the economy work. But that's not what the world powers want. It's so damn obvious. Therefore, as much as I hate to say it, the Ayn Rand Center fix won't work. They haven't fully identified the problem. The NWO is the problem.

How do you fight the NWO in order to free the markets? That's the question. And frankly, I have no idea what the answer is. Do you know? If so ... let us all know. Let us know before the internet is gone. (and yes, I believe the NWO will put restrictions on that soon. Nazi style)

I enjoyed this post. Let me say that I just recently finished reading Atlas Shrugged. Wow! I couldn't believe the similarities to today's world and the fact it was written over 50 years ago.

I have to agree that the moral compass of the leaders is what is hampering our progress. I see it happening all around us. Punish the productive to help the moochers. We have it preached to us that it is our "moral duty" to be forced to take care of the people who can't/won't take care of themselves.

Why should they produce? Why should they make us all wealthier from the mere fact that what they produce enhances our lives?

In the book, all the real producers and intellectuals go on strike when they figure out that they do not need the world, the world needs to mooch off of them. Its a great read and I highly recommend it.

S & F for you, great post. I thought the response from the Ayn Rand istitute would have been much simpler. ie. "Told you so."

Obama was part of that 'affordable housing' crusade. While he was a lawyer for the corrupt ACORN group, he sued Citibank and forced it to give housing loans to people that the bank knew couldn't pay the loans back.

Yes he was, and not to mention the horrible conditions he left his district in Chicago.

What was it a million dollars for Obama's Gazebo in the hood?

Must of been the starting point of Obama's stimulus plan, lol

www.bizzyblog.com...

It seems more than a little naive to make capitalism out to be the big victim here.
There was money to be made by dubious financial maneuverings and money was made. That's how capitalism works.

Besides, I don't really think you can view politics and big business two separate entities. They go hand in glove and both are responsible for the mess we're in.

Originally posted by elston
. ie. "Told you so."

I'm sure that's the most accurate response.

My thought is that even if we employed the Objectivist cure it wouldn't be enough because the Objectivist doesn't allow for the contemporary NWO
in the mix. Straight out .. Ayn Rand is correct. But what we are facing
with the NWO .. and how they crafted this ... I don't know if there is an
answer.

The economy is running exactly as 'they' wish.
it's not an accident. It's not a mistake.
It's by design.
How do you fight that design?

Ayn Rand was a visionary. She learned the dangers of socialism the hard way - first hand.

What can be done? I'd like to see every incoming congressman sign a pledge to reduce the federal gov't by at least $10 million each and every year they are in office. Failure to do so would result in their ouster.

I, for one, am not aware of any "chatter" over a fictional author / book.

I would caution those who take the tomes of a fictional author as gospel to carefully
examine Scientology which is based on the musings of it's author....L. Ron Hubbard.

BTW, Jules Verne also penned some very chilling visions of the future.

Regards.......KK

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel
Let me say that I just recently finished reading Atlas Shrugged.

Here are a few more threads based on that subject.
You might find them interesting.

Sales of Atlas Shrugged Soar
Upper Income Taxpayers Become John Galt
Atlas Shrugged to be released as a movie
Directive 10-289
Rep John Campbell and Atlas Shrugged
A Voice From the Past

Many more threads have had Atlas Shrugged pop up in them as PART of the discussion. They are floating around.

Government should limit pay for Athletes ... Atlas Shrugged discussed here ...
Europe Shares Plunge Atlas Shrugged discussed here ..
GOP Budget Proposals ... Atlas Shrugged discussed here ..
Alan Keyes ... Atlas Shrugged discussed here ..
Bobby Jindal ... Atlas Shrugged discussed here ..
Quantum Theory ... Atlas Shrugged discussed here ..
GAALT - The biggest conspiracy of all Atlas Shrugged discussed here ..
Would a wealth cap save the global economy? Atlas Shrugged discussed here ...
So much for Obama's transparency Atlas Shrugged discussed here ..


I'm sure there are more .. but that should get ya' going!

reply to post by kinda kurious

Originally posted by kinda kurious
I, for one, am not aware of any "chatter" over a fictional author / book.

In addition to the threads that FF cited, I have heard "Atlas Shrugged" mentioned in the media at least a dozen times in the past few weeks.

I guess it depends on what you are reading, watching, or listening to.

Originally posted by kinda kurious
I, for one, am not aware of any "chatter" over a fictional author / book.

I would caution those who take the tomes of a fictional author as gospel to carefully
examine Scientology which is based on the musings of it's author....L. Ron Hubbard.

BTW, Jules Verne also penned some very chilling visions of the future.

Regards.......KK

I hope that the above is dripping with sarcasm. If not then WOW.

Originally posted by elston

I hope that the above is dripping with sarcasm. If not then WOW.

To be clear, it was not my intent to be sarcastic. I am sorry if I was vague. Allow me to make my case. After all, this is a discussion forum last time I checked. I will strive to be more clear, simplistic. I will accept WOW however. That's more like it. Thanks.

All too often people who read a book or embrace a new idea are typically smitten by it and then feel they must preach it to the uninformed masses. As if somehow, the book speaks directly to them and them alone. Like Rand's characters, they imagine themselves to be absolutely right and the rest of the world to be absolutely wrong. They feel like they are misunderstood geniuses and act accordingly. They have somehow become “Objective” as if to be enlightened above all others. I profess that they are simply unique, just like everybody else.

In my opinion this rigid belief system borders on ethnocentricism.

And apparently, specifically regarding the author,I do not share this view alone:

If you read her books, or her essays in The Objectivist, or if you listen to her lectures, you will notice with what frequency and ease she branded any viewpoint she did not share as not merely mistaken but “irrational” or “mystical.” In other words, anything that challenged her particular model of reality was not merely wrong but “irrational” and “mystical”—to say nothing, of course, of its being “evil,” another word she loved to use with extraordinary frequency.

Source: www.nathanielbranden.com...

Objectivism is controversial in a number of ways. First, it includes positions very much at odds with the ideas held by most people. Rand and other Objectivists have also been open about their own criticisms of other philosophers and intellectual traditions, sometimes denouncing them in very forceful terms. Also, Objectivism is a "popular" philosophy, which originated in the writings of novelist with no formal background as an academic philosopher. Finally, Rand's own personality and personal life have sometimes drawn fire from critics who consider her arrogant, dogmatic, hypocritical, etc.

Source: www.noblesoul.com...

Admittedly, reading is a mind expanding experience. However to simply categorize recent human events as similar to something written in a novel ( fiction, I might add) and thereby claim it prophetic it not a concept I can embrace. Coincidental contrivances do not a prophecy make. While it may be entertaining reading, it is by no means a foreteller of the future. Perhaps simply uncanny resemblances misconstrued to serve a purpose. The same argument could be made about the Bible.

I am content serving as the minority poster in this thread confident that any argument is mired by personal belief and any theory open to ambiguous speculation. Flame me if you must.

As General Douglas MacArthur so eloquently said:
“If everybody’s thinking alike, somebody isn’t thinking."

Oh and by the way, I service what I sell.

Regards……KK

[edit on 6-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by FlyersFan

What you say here is right, BUT...

They also made derivatives and hid them on the OTC market where
the SEC has no regulation and derivatives are the real crisis at
over 500 trillion dollars a year ago, now supposedly close to 1,000 Trillion.

So while some things they forced on the market were VERY bad, some
things done by crooks like Stafford and Mad(e)off were bad too.

The derivatives crisis will dwarf the housing crisis when it finally
truly lets go in full, it has not yet, this is just the fat lady warming up.

Good Luck to all the good ppl !

reply to post by kinda kurious

Originally posted by kinda kurious
All too often people who read a book or embrace a new idea are typically smitten by it and then feel they must preach it to the uninformed masses. As if somehow, the book speaks directly to them and them alone.

I first read Atlas Shrugged in 1974. Most recently I read it last month.

I was not smitten in 1974. Enlightened, but not smitten. That's because America was different then. Today, her book has much more relevance

Like Rand's characters, they imagine themselves to be absolutely right and the rest of the world to be absolutely wrong. They feel like they are misunderstood geniuses and act accordingly. They have somehow become “Objective” as if to be enlightened above all others. I profess that they are simply unique, just like everybody else.

Now you're just being rude. Attacking Rand's fans by diminishing them as self-appointed geniuses.

I notice that you have not attacked her philosopy, only her followers. Ad hominem attacks, whether directed at an individual or a group, lend nothing to the discussion.

In my opinion this rigid belief system borders on ethnocentricism.

And apparently, specifically regarding the author,I do not share this view alone:

If you read her books, or her essays in The Objectivist, or if you listen to her lectures, you will notice with what frequency and ease she branded any viewpoint she did not share as not merely mistaken but “irrational” or “mystical.” In other words, anything that challenged her particular model of reality was not merely wrong but “irrational” and “mystical”—to say nothing, of course, of its being “evil,” another word she loved to use with extraordinary frequency.

Source: www.nathanielbranden.com...

Branden and Rand were lovers. Keep that in mind when you cite him as a source. He was unfaithful to his wife while he and Rand had their affair, and he was unfaithful (secretly) to Rand. He was also a less than dedicated scholar.

Objectivism is controversial in a number of ways. First, it includes positions very much at odds with the ideas held by most people. Rand and other Objectivists have also been open about their own criticisms of other philosophers and intellectual traditions, sometimes denouncing them in very forceful terms. Also, Objectivism is a "popular" philosophy, which originated in the writings of novelist with no formal background as an academic philosopher. Finally, Rand's own personality and personal life have sometimes drawn fire from critics who consider her arrogant, dogmatic, hypocritical, etc.

Source: www.noblesoul.com...

So you're saying Ayn Rand was human, with human failings? I'm shocked! Shocked!

However to simply categorize recent human events as similar to something written in a novel ( fiction, I might add) and thereby claim it prophetic it not a concept I can embrace. Coincidental contrivances do not a prophecy make. While it may be entertaining reading, it is by no means a foreteller of the future.

Forget the future. She wrote about what is happening today.

And you may call it 'coincidental', if you wish. Those 1168 pages contain way too many truisms to be called coincidental.

I am content serving as the minority poster in this thread confident that any argument is mired by personal belief and any theory open to ambiguous speculation. Flame me if you must.

Nobody is flaming you. But I wonder why you feel the need to attack other members here. Have you even read the novel?

reply to post by jsobecky


I have reviewed my post and your rebuttals. ( Presently, I am not afforded the luxury of time for a tit-for-tat ping pong match.) I don't believe I "attacked" anyone by presenting my sincere opinion. (Well within T&C.) Corroborated by 2 external sources I stand behind my post (my opinion), more so now after such staunch accusations.

The author's work is controversial. It seems only natural to expect the same when considering critique by those with opposing views.

I was under the impression this is an on-line discussion forum. I didn't realize this was some type of pat on the back, thumbs upping, high fivin' book review thread where opposing points of view are not tolerated.

If as a "fan" you allowed yourself to be offended, it was not my intent. I can't control the actions or reactions of others. Hey, I'm good just not that good.

Respectfully.......KK

reply to post by kinda kurious


You're trying to parlay this into your own victimization. I stand by this one passage:

Like Rand's characters, they imagine themselves to be absolutely right and the rest of the world to be absolutely wrong. They feel like they are misunderstood geniuses and act accordingly. They have somehow become “Objective” as if to be enlightened above all others. I profess that they are simply unique, just like everybody else.

No need to make people feel small, now is there? Discuss the author and her works, and leave the judgment of other members at the door. It's more fun that way.

Originally posted by jsobecky
You're trying to parlay this into your own victimization.

Please make no mistake about me, I am no victim. I am a survivor. Nice try though.

I suppose we simply don't see eye to eye on this topic.

I am confident we can both live with that.

Catch ya' on another thread.

Respectfully....KK










[edit on 6-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Now you're just being rude.

Which is why he's on my 'ignore' list and why the only time I have to see his posts is when someone else quotes it. It always slides down into the mud with personal insults that skew a thread off topic.

Kindergarden rules .. play nice or you have to leave the sandbox.

JSO ... you mentioned Atlas Shrugged being in the news lately. I remember hearing that Hannity came to the conclusion that 'Atlas Has Shrugged'. I don't think Atlas has fully shrugged but I do think the events are coming together, much as they did in the book, and at some point Atlas WILL definately shrug.

I'm not a Rand-Objectivist, but I definately do see similarities between what's happening in the book and what is happening now. Seems that many folks do. That's why the Rand Center put out a statement about the economic situation.

This is funny. Story Here . The movie Atlas Shrugged is supposed to be coming out in 2011. It hasn't been filmed yet and the actors haven't even been picked. It'll be distracting having to watch a radical left winger play free-market Dagny. Angelina Jolie is who is most quoted as being the one to play that role. She'd be a distraction from the story. I think Rachael Wiese would be good. (did I spell her name right? I'm not into hollywood). Betchya the actresses who want the role haven't even read the book.

At the advice of OP and in the spirit of open mindedness, I decided to pursue link provided in OP.

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" .....

www.aynrand.org...

C'mon. Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli?

This is pretty much all I need to know. 'Nuff said.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Kindergarden rules .. play nice or you have to leave the sandbox.

I'll happily go find another sandbox. This one has obviously been mistaken for kitty litter.

Regards...KK


[edit on 7-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

the financial architecture and landscape will always swing from under-regulation to over-regulation...

i think we're wanting to head back into tight regulation,
with no naked-shorting, only mega monied entities allowed to bid futures,
tar-&-feathering predatory CEOs...etc etc.

but the Fed/Treasury overlords, do not want to put strict rules like the
Glass-Steagal act back in place... the Fed/Treas does not want to nullify
the trillion$ in toxic assets either...
they have the idea that a 'market' for all these OTC derivatives will be forced on the people, which the taxpayers will involuntarily Fund
(sorta like telling us to bring our own rope for our own public hanging)


the only alternative might be 'Sharia Law' banks...
or the continued ebbs & flows of semi-controlled markets...
(I'll choose the latter), thank you