Why do Ayn Rand's book suck?

[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.

Wait -- the fed, you mean Alan Greenspan, the Ayn Rand acolyte? So it's all his fault?

[Anonymous]

I went to see the new movie version of Atlas Shrugged yesterday at Landmark Theatre, 11 + E. The movie is pretty good -- first in a trilogy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Given that conservatives cut the White House's proposed stimulus (which was already about 50% smaller than the one recommended by most Keynesian economists) it's pretty rich that conservatives are now arguing it failed. If you ask a scientist how much rocket fuel you need to get your rocket into orbit, they tell you X pounds, so you build a rocket with X/2 pounds of fuel, the failure of the rocket to reach orbit doesn't reflect poorly on the scientist. It reflects poorly on the dolts who second-guessed them.

The second point, that many uninformed right-wing partisans can't seem to wrap their minds around is that we don't have a spending problem--we have a revenue problem caused by the biggest recession since the 1930s, coupled with the Bush tax cuts. Oh, and since it seems you need a reminder, those tax cuts were sold to the American people as the answer to huge projected surpluses. Pretty funny that massive tax cuts are the answer to both surpluses and deficits.

You guys are a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The second point, that many uninformed right-wing partisans can't seem to wrap their minds around is that we don't have a spending problem--we have a revenue problem caused by the biggest recession since the 1930s, coupled with the Bush tax cuts. Oh, and since it seems you need a reminder, those tax cuts were sold to the American people as the answer to huge projected surpluses. Pretty funny that massive tax cuts are the answer to both surpluses and deficits.

You guys are a joke.

I remember those halcyon days of the CLINTON budget surplus. There was concern that the government would pay down all its debt and then be in the position of building up assets (i.e. savings).

So Alan Greenspan (the Ayn Rand disciple) got up before Congress and argued for cutting taxes. He was one of the biggest champions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Thanks a bunch, Alan!

[Anonymous]

That was before the Clinton dot com bust , stock market drop recession he left bush.

[Anonymous]

Ever since the Clinton dot com bust / bang monica while allowing bin laden to plan 911 , the country has been struggling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ever since the Clinton dot com bust / bang monica while allowing bin laden to plan 911 , the country has been struggling.

Are you for real? Are you a high school kid going on DCUM for kicks? Were you old enough to read the newspapers in 2000-2001?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Ever since the Clinton dot com bust / bang monica while allowing bin laden to plan 911 , the country has been struggling.

This is getting to be ancient history, but perhaps Clinton didn't "connect the dots". Regardless, Bush was given a report titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." There were not dots to connect. But, Bush stayed on vacation.

What is your position on the Bush tax cuts? A plus or minus for the economy?

[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.

Love it. Total cognitive dissonance. Well your refutation comes from none other than Randian Alan Greenspan himself, who admits that he did not do enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/business/economy/19fed.html

[Anonymous]

The verdict on Ayn Rand is Alan Greenspan. He admitted that he screwed up. His predictions that the market could regulate itself were wrong. His predictions that the housing bubble was not ominous and pervasive were wrong. His advice to not pay down our debt too quickly was wrong.

Basically he tested the hypothesis of government getting out of the way of the financial markets. And we learned our lesson.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ever since the Clinton dot com bust / bang monica while allowing bin laden to plan 911 , the country has been struggling.

This is getting to be ancient history, but perhaps Clinton didn't "connect the dots". Regardless, Bush was given a report titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US." There were not dots to connect. But, Bush stayed on vacation.

What is your position on the Bush tax cuts? A plus or minus for the economy?

Since a conservative hasn't stepped up, I'll try. I think the tax cuts stunk for the economy. Since the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts eliminated the budget surplus, they had the effect of using the Social Security cash surplus to pay for budget deficits - whereas if we had still had a budget surplus, the Social Security cash surplus would have been used to pay down public debt (hello, debt limit nuts). Worse, the Social Security payroll tax is fairly regressive (because it's only on the first $108,000 of your wages), and it was used as a substitute for the progressive income tax for financing the budget deficit.

[Anonymous]

17:29 again. I forgot to mention the cherry on this little cake: using the Social Security surplus to finance the budget deficit (the budget deficit that resulted from the tax cuts) meant that conservatives could whine that "somebody" raided Social Security and, since it's all gone now, we need to privatize it.

It's all pretty devious. So there must be somebody smart in the party, just not the followers.

[Anonymous]

Stimulus from all sides since 1998, and here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:17:29 again. I forgot to mention the cherry on this little cake: using the Social Security surplus to finance the budget deficit (the budget deficit that resulted from the tax cuts) meant that conservatives could whine that "somebody" raided Social Security and, since it's all gone now, we need to privatize it.

It's all pretty devious. So there must be somebody smart in the party, just not the followers.

Thanks for reminding me. I almost forgot how Bush wanted to have us all invest part of our social security benefits in the stock market. Good thing we didn't do that.

[Anonymous]

No. much smarter to put ss money into the government ponzi scheme that is worth 14.3 trillion less than a homeless man on the corner.