The High Cost of Washington's Price Manipulation Policy | Hacker News Reader

The High Cost of Washington's Price Manipulation Policy

aynrand.org

13 pointsgibsonf120 comments

An interesting thought. It doesn't address the impact this would have on schools (already over-crowded or not) or other capacity-limited public works. I mean, in theory the tax base would expand, but that would kind of be slightly after the need arrived. This would require a much more thorough analysis and would still be guaranteed to have some unanticipated consequences.

But out-of-the-box thinking is a good thing to be doing whenever one can.

Why all the incessant Rand bashing? It strikes me as being really ignorant. Ayn Rand presented a moral defense of capitalism, and entrepreneurs should be thankful for that.

So-called entrepreneurs who are anti-Rand are typically the types whose projects are not really innovative, and depend more on bubble mentalities than on actual value added. If all you want is to have a VC look at your degree and your buzzwords and write a check, then you have no use for Rand's philosophy or any sort of moral defense of capitalism -- yours is a world of saying what others want to hear and getting in good with the powerful.

Interesting way to look at it. I'm not sure how practical it might be (in fact, it's pretty clear that it's not practical at all), but still, as a thought-experiment it's quite interesting.

The cult of Rand may be what got us here in the first place.

Did you not just read the article where the cult of Rand described what it would have done differently, which bears no resemblance to what actually happened?

Note how I use the phrase "cult of Rand" as well. I'm not a fan. But come on, let's apportion blame where it actually belongs. When real economic policy doesn't resemble X's economic policies, turning around and blaming X's policies when it all goes wrong is just bullshit politics.

For all we know, Randism would be worse than what we have today, but what we have today is not Randism and you can't blame it for where we are.

This is like all those people blaming the crisis on "laissez-faire capitalism", where it just sort of goes without saying that "laissez-faire capitalism" is what we have, because if you actually had to say how the mortgage system was "laissez-faire", it would be obviously wrong.

Exactly. Most of the hardcore Randians that I have come in contact with are not even true Objectivists, at least as far as my understanding of it goes.

And it is very frustrating hearing so many people saying our present mess is a result of policies advocated by Rand, when they are anything but. Banks were lending out money that did not belong to them, and cutting themselves huge profits, with no risk. Anyone who says this is the type of person Rand admired has obviously read nothing written by her, they have most likely read someone attributing this to her, but it was exactly this type of behaviour that she condemned.

Why do I care? Because if people don't figure out right from wrong soon, we will be in REALLY serious trouble. Actions do have consequences.

The problem was not necessarily the home loans themselves, but that these high-risk loans were classified as extremely low-risk by credit rating agencies. The government did not make these classifications, nor did the government force exuberant optimism on financial institutions.

The current situation may have been avoided by saner lending guidelines, but it could also have been avoided by better government oversight of the shell games being played by the investment banks. It's blatantly false to claim that the only problem here was federal economic policy, and that the only solution would have been less governmental involvement.

> It's blatantly false to claim that the only problem here was federal economic policy,

How fortunate I do not make that claim. In fact, the only claim I made is that our economy is not based on Randism. You projected the rest out.

I was responding to the article, not your post. I should have made that clearer, sorry.

Perhaps the good folks who follow the cult of Rand could discuss for us the costs, as they see them, of unregulated greed.

Hopefully they can do it on a site that's appropriate for the discussion of Ayn Rand and her philosophy.

I see your point but if YC is about entrepreneurship then one's understanding of the morality of capitalism determines whether one views the entrepreneur as a greedy scoundrel or respectable citizen.

Uh, I think everyone here is pretty much ok with entrepreneurship. Also, your sentence is kind of a run on/non-sequitur:

> if YC is about entrepreneurship then one's understanding of the morality of capitalism determines whether one views the entrepreneur as a greedy scoundrel or respectable citizen.

... but only because YC is about entrepreneurship, right? Otherwise one's understanding of the morality of capitalism wouldn't determine his or her views of the entrepreneur?

Once again, I think this site's users are on board with capitalism (and if they aren't, well go talk about it someplace else), so we don't really need to go there.

perhaps, but if one doesn't broadly agree with Rand's morality about capitalism, then he/she probably has some sort of "capitalism is evil/greedy" view, which is something that really ought to be sorted out before one ends up starting a business :)

Do you have a secular definition of greed to offer, so that someone might have a shot at answering your question?

i've never seen a poll on the topic of immigration that shows anything under 85% of americans being against loosening borders further. even the libertarian party figured this out...look at their election 08 platforms and you will see that even they threw in the towel on open borders. this issue is DOA, political suicide.

McCain and Obama were in fundamental agreement on the issue, viz, that the borders should be opened and all illegals should receive amnesty. And thus they never discussed it.

So strange to see seeming anti-establishment nuts (randians) suggesting the government do what it's already been doing for decades. The only people who benefit from immigration are asset-holders, so needless to say, people with a combination of amorality and asset wealth want as much as possible.

Uh, do you feel that as someone who emerged from his/her mother's vagina on American soil you are deserving of more than someone who emerged elsewhere? Why shouldn't someone who is willing to work be allowed to come here to be hired by someone who willingly wants to hire them?

The US does not have open immigration, nor is it opening. Both Obama and McCain oppose(d) any meaningful increase in immigration.

Your point is that rather than worrying about principles we should just take a poll and only discuss things that poll at close to 50%?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com