Why do Ayn Rand's book suck?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Yup, I'm the PP who won it (shamefully!). I mentioned it to show that I do have a good grasp of objectivism (before tearing into it), and that I think it's obtuse crap now that I'm not a ridiculous teenager anymore."

Sounded more like you were bragging.

Definitely not I would never admit it in a non-anonymous forum. I'm a pretty big liberal, and it's a black mark on my record! (I should also mention the monetary prize was much lower back then, so it wasn't like I made bank from it, either.)

Another poster here who appreciates your candor! It's a pretty good story.

[Anonymous]

Yaaaaaawn.

[Anonymous]

Even though the philosophical underpinnings of her writings are all supposed to be based on economics and rationality, she eschews many complex subjects that have a great impact on economies at both micro and macro levels (negative externalities, psychological issues, asymmetry of information, etc).

As conservatives like to say, "It's Economics 101!" Basically a childish understanding of economics, that discards all complexity you touched on--and even more, in that economics also balances social considerations in what we define as "optimum".

That's why it's so unforgivable to find out that someone like Alan Greenspan is an Objectivist True Believer. It's one thing to be a Trekkie--it's another to let Star Trek be your lodestone in matters of public policy.

[Anonymous]

I gotta say that I adored the Fountainhead when I first read it which was when I was 13 or something. In love with HR. Too young and/or ignorant to get the politics. I found Atlas Shrugged pretty much unreadable even then. Now of course I'm horrified but wow, reading it then was so much fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It appears that liberals, who believe the works of al (sex poodle) gore are high-minded an intelligent are writing long winded posts about some book they think is stupid. Better check it out, must have a lot of truth in it.

Wow what a subjective defense of the author of objectivism. Liberals hate it so it must be true. That is exactly how Ayn Rand writes her characters. Hilarious and weak-minded.

Right, but this is actually pretty illuminating: for the most part, American conservatives like their art to the extent that they perceive it will upset some ideal Liberal somewhere. This is why there are no "conservative" comedians--or, that there are (e.g. Limbaugh, Dennis Miller, ???), but that they're both embarrassingly unfunny, and the "joke" is that Jane Fonda is somewhere getting upset.

Same with "conservative" "literature".

[Anonymous]

Odd, not one cogent defense of objectivism.

I guess conservatives are in a real quanadry: to read and understand something well enough that they can articulate the central arguments might get them labeled "liberal elite".

[Anonymous]

Everybody knows it is the liberal elite that made this country great. Parasitic much?

[Anonymous]

A lot of conservative notions have been disabused: the Laffer curve, trickle-down economics, the idea that absolutely free flow of capital among countries will lead to economic growth.

So they fall back on ... poorly written fantasy? Which I guess is why, instead of citing somebody from the Chicago School, so many conservatives cite Ayn Rand.

[Anonymous]

As if kensyan economics aren't a laughingstock. Stimulus much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As if kensyan economics aren't a laughingstock. Stimulus much?

Do you mean Keynesian economics? No comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As if kensyan economics aren't a laughingstock. Stimulus much?

So let's review .... the Wall Street meltdown was brought to us by the fed and other government agencies who failed to regulate financial markets. (Thanks, Alan Greenspan, Ayn Rand fan! We know you had power to regulate mortgage brokers that you refused to use.)

And the stimulus saved us from an even worse economic crisis, like 15% unemployment.

Do you live on an alternative planet? Or have you just been living under a rock?

[Anonymous]

we've been under stimulus since the dot-com meltdown recession Clinton left for Bush and the subsequent 911 attack less than 1 yr into the Bush presidency due to not connecting the dots and poor intelligence under Clinton. The fed has forced low rates since then to bring back the Dot Com bust economy, then the terror economy which shifted the bibble from dot-com to real estate. Now we are in a Goverment bubble along with a stock market and commodity bubble again due to stimulus,stimulus stimulus from all quarters. Whatever happens it aint gonna be pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As if kensyan economics aren't a laughingstock. Stimulus much?

It's a play on "kenyan"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As if kensyan economics aren't a laughingstock. Stimulus much?

So let's review .... the Wall Street meltdown was brought to us by the fed and other government agencies who failed to regulate financial markets. (Thanks, Alan Greenspan, Ayn Rand fan! We know you had power to regulate mortgage brokers that you refused to use.)

And the stimulus saved us from an even worse economic crisis, like 15% unemployment.

Do you live on an alternative planet? Or have you just been living under a rock?

Obama said if we didn't pass stimulus umemployment would possibly go over 8%. That was supposed to scare us. Now you have to make up 15% just to save face. Stimulus failed and there is no light at the end of the debt train-crash. Stupid failed idea, and the economy will still suck next year too, if it hasn't imploded by then. Obama is really a terrible President.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:we've been under stimulus since the dot-com meltdown recession Clinton left for Bush and the subsequent 911 attack less than 1 yr into the Bush presidency due to not connecting the dots and poor intelligence under Clinton. The fed has forced low rates since then to bring back the Dot Com bust economy, then the terror economy which shifted the bibble from dot-com to real estate. Now we are in a Goverment bubble along with a stock market and commodity bubble again due to stimulus,stimulus stimulus from all quarters. Whatever happens it aint gonna be pretty.

This is a truly amazing post. Why? Because it manages to refer to multiple things the Bush Administration did, while trying to pin the blame on Clinton. It boggles the mind.

I agree that Bush's two wars, plus his tax cuts for the rich in 2001 and 2003, qualify as "stimulus" measures. It's obvious though (I would hope it's obvious) that Bush started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for different reasons than the stimulus that Obama pushed in response to the Wall Street crash that threatened to take down our banking system. Apples and oranges.

Does your brain actually work this way? Or do you realize you're spouting absolute nonsense.