<p><em>applauds</em> well said</p>
<p>I Hate Ayn Rand With A ****_ing Vengeance.</p>
<p>^^^^Amen, Brother!</p>
<p>Errr, sister, actually, right? I seem to remember jimbob being a girl...</p>
<p>Maybe I should be glad i've never read anything by Ayn Rand...</p>
<p>Yeah I'm a girl . And I saw your post about the homeless? Ayn Rand would've said that helping the homeless would lead to the downfall of society as we know it :) What a stupid woman. Of course, I'm sure she was smart and all, but she came to the US from Russia or something, so she went from one ideological extreme right into another. Her environment must've conditioned her into the crap called objectivism, aka "eat the poor."</p>
<p>I don't think that the only thing we need to have in mind here is humility. People who get into places like uchicago deserve and have the right to be proud and say that we got into places like it because of our hard work and sacrafice, at the expense of other (social for example) areas. We need to recognize why we can go to places like this and feel good about the efforts that it took us to get there. At the same time as we need to be humble, we also must learn to be proud of what we have done and excited about what we will do in the years to come. Onward to learning.</p>
<p>Two things, Paul Singer and Ayn Rand.</p>
<p>i hate it when someone finishes using the chocolate syrup, then smashes the clear cap on, smudging chocolate syrup all over the cap and leaving the next person to use it a disgusting little treat.</p>
<p>Errr...sorry if I'm hopelessly stupid, but who is Paul Singer?</p>
<p>And yes, jimbob, Ayn Rand sucks. Objectivism is impossibly extreme. Implementing her philosophy in daily life would result in the collapse of society. It's a very impractical system. I think we saw in the Gilded Age just how well pure capitalism, as advocated in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, works.</p>
<p>First of all, I feel stupid, last night I wasn't thinking straight apparantly, and I typed his name wrong...It is Peter Singer.
Basically, his philosophical beliefs are best defined as "radical utilitarianism" He believes in a horde of insane and impractical things, such as the relative value of murder (where it is better to kill someone very old or very young than to kill someone in between, as the very old and very young (crippled young, that is), are "unworthy" of life, that they do not contribute to society), the equalitiy of animals to people, that taking the west's income that would be spent upon non-essential goods and giving it to the third world, and many other strange things. Sorry to rant, if you want to read about him in a more coherant manner, here is a website <a href="http://www.answers.com/peter%20singer%5B/url%5D">http://www.answers.com/peter%20singer</a></p>
<p>think he meant peter singer.</p>
<p>edit: am an idiot. didn't refresh the page & see his own other post.</p>
<p>Hahaha, ok, I was wondering if that's who you meant. I've read Practical Ethics, I know what you mean. He advocates taking care of "absolute necessities" for all of humanity before taking care of "absolute luxuries" for anyone. Very communistic. And completely unrealistic.</p>
<p>is that kinda like moral calculus?</p>
<p>I'm glad that I started this outpouring of anri-Rand. I hate the Rand-her ideas and her writing style.</p>
<p>"I think we saw in the Gilded Age just how well pure capitalism, as advocated in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, works."</p>
<p>One irony of that comment is that one of the book's main contributors, Alan Greenspan, is just finishing up 18.5 years as the Chairman of the Fed. Of course, many objectivists/libertarians would argue that his actions have not been congruent with his (former?) ideology: artificially holding down the interest rate to levels as low as 1% (clearly below the "natural" rate), causing a boom in housing prices and a subsequent rush for homeowners to take out home equity loans and go credit-crazy with a house (whose price could crash at any moment) as collateral. And that's not even mentioning the stock/Nasdaq boom and bust of the late 90s/early 00s that was caused by the Fed's hesitation to raise the interest rate. </p>
<p>But enough of that tirade. I'm not a Randian or objectivist myself, but I think that your idea that "we saw" (although none of us nor our parents, nor many of our grandparents were alive during the period) that the Gilded Age somehow proved that laissez-faire was the wrong course. However, I think that "our vision" is highly influenced (tainted?) by reinterpretations by historians - many of whom, like us, did not experience that period. However, there are some facts that I would like to point out:</p>
<p>The Gilded Age (1876-1914) was the period of America's industrialization. After the Civil War, America's economy was far less advanced than those of European powers like Britain and France. However, during the Gilded Age the U.S. developed to the point where, by the end of World War I, it had pulled about even with the Europeans (with some "help" from the destructive war, of course). </p>
<p>To do this was quite an achievement, as a few generations before the bloodiest war in American history had occurred on its own soil, destroying many cities and ending the lives of countless working men. </p>
<p>Not only did America industrialize (and well), but it also gained a transportation network that facilitated in-country commerce and migration. This allowed people to more easily travel, sell their goods in other cities, etc. It also allowed them to eat cheap steaks :).</p>
<p>A sign of America's growing prosperity was its designation of "The Land of Opportunity" among immigrants, especially from the southern and East-Central areas of Europe. Tens of millions of immigrants flowed through Ellis Island (among other stations) to work, raise families, and build a better life in America than was possible in their homelands. </p>
<p>Finally, the "Robber Barons", antagonized by many modern historians, weren't so bad after all. In fact, they were very important patrons of the arts and sciences (I'm sure you know who started UChicago :) ). In a socialist country, or even a modern-day welfare state where large agglomerations of wealth are looked upon suspiciously, all "premier institutions" must be state-funded - the state is the only apparatus able to get ahold of the necessary capital. Of course, this is one reason why Germany, for example, still has very few prestigious universities (Shroeder enjoyed complaining about this) and France gives government subsidies to seemingly every type of artist under the sun. </p>
<p>And the impetus behind all this: a relatively laissez-faire brand of capitalism. Of course, I wouldn't confuse this with a "free-market" or "neoliberal" economy - the tariffs and subsidies were too high (though not suffocatingly so) for that to be a reality. However, in spite of these barriers, the U.S. still became an industrial power and thus gave millions the opportunity to rise out of poverty (Carnegie is a paragon) through capitalist incentives - invest your money, and you will be able to reap any return you can earn. This was the force behind the railways, the exponential growth in patents, the factories, the oil refineries, skyscrapers, etc. All this enriched Americans greatly, and our increased wealth spurred drives for reforms in education, welfare etc. (many of which called for government intervention, thus opening a whole new bag of worms and providing a step down the slippery slope to America's "big government" era). </p>
<p>I'm not saying there weren't any problems in the U.S. during the Gilded Age. Political corruption was high, some monopolies existed, and racism was definitely extant. However:</p>
<ol>
<li>Greed is an inherent human trait, and it is not "caused" by a certain economic or political system. Politicans will always seek rent (bribes and graft) and use the control they have, whether that control is relatively limited (as during the Gilded Age) or relatively unlimited (the Soviet Union or Cuba). When politicans use the incentives at their hands to benefit personally, we would not usually term it "a problem of the Gilded Age" but a "problem of the political incentives" or "a problem of the rules of the game" - the power that rests in the hands of the politicians. But as the Gilded Age was characterized by laissez-faire, the government had little chance to cause any major damage anyway; heck, the Cr</li>
</ol>
<p>This is in response to those professed Rand-haters: have you even read anything that she has written? For supposedly intelligent students who want to attend the University of Chicago, your posts have been semi-illiterate and a complete mis-representation of her ideas. You seem to enjoy finding camaraderie in others who hate her writing - what exactly is the point of this? No one has bothered to explain <em>why</em> they hate Rand so much - if you truly think your opinions are valid, then why don't you try and back up some of those big words?</p>
<p>I've read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Anthem, and Fountainhead. As for the explanation, I'll PM it to you later, it's an essay I wrote, so I don't want to post it in the forums...</p>
<p>woah, thats some diatribe, asleeacn. i didnt read most of it, but alan greenspan is the man. hes one of the few things reagan did right.</p>
<p>As an aside - the Gilded Age was <em>not</em> Laissez Faire Capitalism. It was the product of a mixed economy, which caused the high level of corruption. The United States has never had a <em>true</em> separation of state and economics. Your straw man therefore, isn't valid.</p>
<p>Yes, you're certainly correct, it was not a pure laissez-faire. However, economic interference is not a simple "on/off" switch - there are definite gradients. And, when you compare a tax burden of 6% in 1900 with today's 30%, I think it's obvious which is closer to economic freedom. Also, I believe that a "'true' separation of state and economics" is impossible, because as long as a state protects property rights, it will perforce have some interference, albeit probably a small one, in the economy.</p>
<p>I'm not sure I understand - how does protecting property rights "interfere" with the economy? Capitalism can only work when property rights <em>are</em> recognized! The Gilded Age is perhaps the worst example you could have picked to support your statist opinions - corruption, kickbacks, grafting - it was all the result of <em>too</em> close an association between government and business. Laissez Faire demands that there is no interference in the economy at all - protective tariffs, as was shown in the 1929 crash are just as damaging as any other restrictions set on commerce. Laissez Faire is also the only moral economic system available - because it recognizes the fact the value for value qua man is the only way man's freedom and constitutional rights can be preserved. At the end of every interference in the economy by the government is a gun. At the end of every free trade between two individuals is a handshake. Which do you prefer?</p>