I'll get this out of the way:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

How bright could she have been? They spotted her an 'A' and an 'N', and she still couldn't spell her name right.

Any sane person should be able to see exactly why Rand was a nutcase, and the reasons why any system like hers could never function. This is why she is so popular.

I don't pay much attention to politics, and while I knew who Alan Greenspan was, and how *powerful* he was, I had no idea he was one of Rand's close buddies.

The day I found that out (about 5 years ago), I thought "Man, we're screwed". And we were.

Magorn: Then I found out that several major CEO's of financial firms, and no less a power than Alana Farking Greenspan were all deeply devoted to Rand's ideology.

If my memory serves me well, then I think he was just deeply devoted to her ass and would say anything to tap it at the party.

realmolo: The day I found that out (about 5 years ago), I thought "Man, we're screwed". And we were.

Economists would call that a "Leading Indicator", right?

Senescent Dawn: Any sane person should be able to see exactly why Rand was a nutcase, and the reasons why any system like hers could never function. This is why she is so popular.

Marx has his adherents too. Still, even though he predicted the corruption of government by the "rich", you won't see me calling for a proletariat revolution.

Both economic philosophies are great for the classroom, but worth f*ck-all in real life.

BunkoSquad: The English Major: Objectivism is anarchism for the timid.

[Insert "Why don't you move to Somalia" challenge]

Unfortunately for Aynarchist Randroids, it's the place where self-interest rules all. They may not like it, but that's where Galt's Gulch ends up when you use real human beings, not fantasy caricatures.

vort3xxx: realmolo: The day I found that out (about 5 years ago), I thought "Man, we're screwed". And we were.

Economists would call that a "Leading Indicator", right?

Hmmm... That would be an interesting approach. Sales of Rand's books as a future indicator of market bubbles.

The English Major: Oh, good, another Ayn Rand thread.

I was well and truly wondering why Zombie Ayn Rand is all the rage now. I mean, I know there's that new biography of her and all, but...

realmolo: The day I found that out (about 5 years ago), I thought "Man, we're screwed". And we were.

Amen, brother. Randers (what are her groupies called? Randers? Randites? Does one give a Randamonials when telling how The Fountain of Atlas's Butt changed their life?) always seem to think their perfect society will be just like Two Year's Vacation when it really comes back to Lord of the Flies.

/hot like the labor of the fields

inglixthemad: Randroids

Randroids! I love it.

The central problem is the selfish aspect asks people to do something with their selfishness which humans are not capable of doing: not using people in pursuit of their selfish ambitions and deny their selfish desires to have power over others.

Ayn Rand's philosophy, like much of modern economics, is built on the shakiest of foundations: that human beings are rational economic actors. Everything from game theory to the most esoteric economic model assumes that every actor is going to rationally attempt to maximize their own benefit.

This is false. Not because of altruism, but because the human brain has cognitive biases that prevent rational action.

Just a simple example: two new vaccines are created to treat a fatal disease. The first vaccine saves an infected victim 33% of the time, and the remainder die. The second vaccine results in the death of 66% of the infected, and the remainder survive.

Which vaccine is superior? In controlled studies, an overwhelming majority of respondents choose the first vaccine, and never note that both vaccines are identical.

And so on. There are mountains of studies that demonstrate cognitive biases that humans have. If humans were rational economic actors, casinos would go out of business and everybody would invest in index funds.

An economic philosophy based on "rational self-interest" may be an interesting academic exercise, but has little to do with the real world.

t3knomanser: This is false. Not because of altruism, but because the human brain has cognitive biases that prevent rational action.

That and one man's utility is another man's extravagance. There was some goofy discussion about this in a thread about fireplaces of all things, some objectivist telling us all that fireplaces served no utility because he lived in Houston, therefore fireplaces were bad. (Yes, I am paraphrasing). I said yeah, maybe... but I like burning stuff. And on and on and on.

As long as you take Ayn Rand's work more like a philosophical comic book it's great. None of ideas could exists in it's purity in the real world but she's brings out a lot of interesting ideas.

Don't take anything at face value.

What you don't understand is that the writings of MarxRand have never been properly implemented. The ideas MarxRand outlines are fair and will lead to a better society. The problem is that the parasitic CapatalistsWorkers are preventing this because they are so evil and selfish.

You people are just bashing MarxRand because you have not read Das Kapital/Atlas Shrugged. If you did you would really understand that MarxRand is right.

FlashHarry: Magorn: I used to very snarkily say " MY touchstone for gauging someone's intellectual worth is whether or not they are capabale of taking seriously the rantings of a spoiled brat with Aspberger's, or worse yet using it as a guiding personal philosophy."

Then I found out that several major CEO's of financial firms, and no less a power than Alana Farking Greenspan were all deeply devoted to Rand's ideology.


and then the giant farking mess we're in right now made perfect sense

it's pretty much all explained here. greenspan actually had rand at his swearing in. seriously.

Really, Where did they prop her corpse? I'm hoping it was next to Justice Souter, who only seemed like a corpse at the time.

\Rand died in 1982. Greenspan was sworn in in 1987.
\\Souter is possibly the worst Supreme Court Justice ever. His opinions read like the owners' manual for an early '80s discount VCR.

t3knomanser: Ayn Rand's philosophy

Political/Economic philosophy?

Objectivism as it pertains to individuals is very different...

Rand's philosophy doesn't care about how human beings act; it cares about how one person acts.

I think the lesson here is that Marxism fails and so does anarchy, the best system is somewhere in between. All the benefits of liberty and objectivism with a small safety net for necessities like food and healthcare.

t3knomanser: Ayn Rand's philosophy, like much of modern economics, is built on the shakiest of foundations: that human beings are rational economic actors. Everything from game theory to the most esoteric economic model assumes that every actor is going to rationally attempt to maximize their own benefit.

This is false. Not because of altruism, but because the human brain has cognitive biases that prevent rational action.

Just a simple example: two new vaccines are created to treat a fatal disease. The first vaccine saves an infected victim 33% of the time, and the remainder die. The second vaccine results in the death of 66% of the infected, and the remainder survive.

Which vaccine is superior? In controlled studies, an overwhelming majority of respondents choose the first vaccine, and never note that both vaccines are identical.

And so on. There are mountains of studies that demonstrate cognitive biases that humans have. If humans were rational economic actors, casinos would go out of business and everybody would invest in index funds.

An economic philosophy based on "rational self-interest" may be an interesting academic exercise, but has little to do with the real world.

Actually, the second vaccine is better for the additional 1% of people who survive.

100-66=34.

1/3 rounds to 33%. 2/3 rounds to 67%.

FarkIlk01: The central problem is the selfish aspect asks people to do something with their selfishness which humans are not capable of doing: not using people in pursuit of their selfish ambitions and deny their selfish desires to have power over others.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

scandalrag: Really, Where did they prop her corpse?

From some other post Greenspan held:

t3knomanser: Ayn Rand's philosophy, like much of modern economics, is built on the shakiest of foundations: that human beings are rational economic actors. Everything from game theory to the most esoteric economic model assumes that every actor is going to rationally attempt to maximize their own benefit.

This is false. Not because of altruism, but because the human brain has cognitive biases that prevent rational action.

Just a simple example: two new vaccines are created to treat a fatal disease. The first vaccine saves an infected victim 33% of the time, and the remainder die. The second vaccine results in the death of 66% of the infected, and the remainder survive.

Which vaccine is superior? In controlled studies, an overwhelming majority of respondents choose the first vaccine, and never note that both vaccines are identical.

And so on. There are mountains of studies that demonstrate cognitive biases that humans have. If humans were rational economic actors, casinos would go out of business and everybody would invest in index funds.

An economic philosophy based on "rational self-interest" may be an interesting academic exercise, but has little to do with the real world.

I'm no Nicolas Cage but my maths tell me that the first vaccine has a 33% survival rate while the second one has a 34% survival rate. I don't think they are identical, I'd pick the second one.

scandalrag: FlashHarry: Magorn: I used to very snarkily say " MY touchstone for gauging someone's intellectual worth is whether or not they are capabale of taking seriously the rantings of a spoiled brat with Aspberger's, or worse yet using it as a guiding personal philosophy."

Then I found out that several major CEO's of financial firms, and no less a power than Alana Farking Greenspan were all deeply devoted to Rand's ideology.


and then the giant farking mess we're in right now made perfect sense

it's pretty much all explained here. greenspan actually had rand at his swearing in. seriously.

Really, Where did they prop her corpse? I'm hoping it was next to Justice Souter, who only seemed like a corpse at the time.

\Rand died in 1982. Greenspan was sworn in in 1987.
\\Souter is possibly the worst Supreme Court Justice ever. His opinions read like the owners' manual for an early '80s discount VCR.

Not for Fed Chairman, but for a position he took at the Ford White House.

scandalrag: t3knomanser: Ayn Rand's philosophy, like much of modern economics, is built on the shakiest of foundations: that human beings are rational economic actors. Everything from game theory to the most esoteric economic model assumes that every actor is going to rationally attempt to maximize their own benefit.

This is false. Not because of altruism, but because the human brain has cognitive biases that prevent rational action.

Just a simple example: two new vaccines are created to treat a fatal disease. The first vaccine saves an infected victim 33% of the time, and the remainder die. The second vaccine results in the death of 66% of the infected, and the remainder survive.

Which vaccine is superior? In controlled studies, an overwhelming majority of respondents choose the first vaccine, and never note that both vaccines are identical.

And so on. There are mountains of studies that demonstrate cognitive biases that humans have. If humans were rational economic actors, casinos would go out of business and everybody would invest in index funds.

An economic philosophy based on "rational self-interest" may be an interesting academic exercise, but has little to do with the real world.

Actually, the second vaccine is better for the additional 1% of people who survive.

100-66=34.

1/3 rounds to 33%. 2/3 rounds to 67%.

damn you beat me to it because I had to mention a famous math man.

scandalrag: Actually, the second vaccine is better for the additional 1% of people who survive.

100-66=34.

1/3 rounds to 33%. 2/3 rounds to 67%.

I'm not sure that roundoff error is the main point here.

Goban: FarkIlk01: The central problem is the selfish aspect asks people to do something with their selfishness which humans are not capable of doing: not using people in pursuit of their selfish ambitions and deny their selfish desires to have power over others.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

She definitely followed that up. I love how she made her husband wear a bell on his foot and she would actually give him her boning schedule with her younger protege. She definitely practiced what she preached.

Did "Bob the Angry Flower" even read Atlas Shrugged? Galt's Gulch already had a self-sustaining village well before society collapsed.

Hollie Maea: scandalrag: Actually, the second vaccine is better for the additional 1% of people who survive.

100-66=34.

1/3 rounds to 33%. 2/3 rounds to 67%.

I'm not sure that roundoff error is the main point here.

You are right the main point is there is no rounding error since he said 33% and not 33 1/3% in the original post. So it is 100-66=34% survive and 100-67=33% survive. Obviously the second one is better unless you fall in that one percent then the first is better.

Riche: Maybe it's time to bring back the 90% marginal tax rateeliminate the income tax. It sure didn't hurt growth in the 1950's and 60'sindustrial revolution.

/my idea is no more stupid than yours.

scandalrag: Actually, the second vaccine is better for the additional 1% of people who survive.

100-66=34.

1/3 rounds to 33%. 2/3 rounds to 67%.

Bah, arithmetic. This is why I'm a programmer- because computers are better at rote arithmetic than I am.

Hollie Maea: I'm not sure that roundoff error is the main point here.

No. The point was, that when two identical circumstances are expressed differently, one in terms of gain, the other in terms of loss, the human brain defaults to preferring gain.

This loss aversion feeds market crashes. It also explains why a gambler will stay in a hand they can't win, because they've already invested too much to back out now. Losses send the brain into panic mode, and can lead to irrational behavior.

heh.
I'de like to think that since her ideas on capitalism have been tried, and have failed miserably, then we could put those tired dis-proven ideas to rest. Alas I know there will always be those POS's who are more than willing to tout such ideas only because they suit their "mine, mine mine, me, me, me" personality. At least now such people will, hopefully, be taken as serious as... well. Birthers.
only regret that she didn't live long enough to see her twisted views go down in flames.

Rapmaster2000: Goban: FarkIlk01: The central problem is the selfish aspect asks people to do something with their selfishness which humans are not capable of doing: not using people in pursuit of their selfish ambitions and deny their selfish desires to have power over others.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

She definitely followed that up. I love how she made her husband wear a bell on his foot and she would actually give him her boning schedule with her younger protege. She definitely practiced what she preached.

Oh...she turned into the L. Ron Hubbard of Economics/Philosophy. She got some stuff right, story of the 20th Century Motor Co. and a few other things but the more she tried to take on the more she had to become a mental contortionist to make it all fit and match. The premise of Atlas Shrugged was pretty much people going on strike which is all fine and good but there are plenty of folks ready to step in and take their place. Even if it takes 3 people to replace you, you still will get replaced due to sheer volume. Folks gotta eat and have no time for you and your hissy fit.

Clarence Potter: That and one man's utility is another man's extravagance. There was some goofy discussion about this in a thread about fireplaces of all things, some objectivist telling us all that fireplaces served no utility because he lived in Houston, therefore fireplaces were bad. (Yes, I am paraphrasing). I said yeah, maybe... but I like burning stuff. And on and on and on.

But that's the thing. That Randian didn't understand objectivism too well then. That's more of a utilitarian philosophy he had there. Objectivism labels something as "bad" when it fulfills no need whatsoever. Whether that need is utilitarian or personal enjoyment. Bad would be the gov't using tax money to buy you a turnip when you hate turnips.

lordmoose: Rand's philosophy doesn't care about how human beings act; it cares about how one person acts.

Oh don't be silly. Snark clearly proves her wrong.

t3knomanser:

This loss aversion feeds market crashes. It also explains why a gambler will stay in a hand they can't win, because they've already invested too much to back out now. Losses send the brain into panic mode, and can lead to irrational behavior.

This is similar (or identical) to the sunk-cost fallacy. The act of continuing with a project because you've already spent money on it. That money is gone and you cannot recover it so it is no justification to continue.

A particularly ghoulish example I can recall is George W arguing that we must stay in Iraq so that the lives of the sons and daughters who died would not be in vain. (disclaimer: we can't leave Iraq now either, but that's not the point - this isn't a political thing). Anyway, I knew that he knew he was using a sunk cost fallacy, but the emotion of that is very powerful. You don't want your sons and daughters to die for nothing, but that's not a justification to get someone else killed. The sunk cost fallacy is an intellectual trick that our emotions can play on us.

HypnozombieX: I'de like to think that since her ideas on capitalism have been tried, and have failed miserably, then we could put those tired dis-proven ideas to rest.

Really? Her idea was a massive centrally managed federal reserve that tried to game the market to manipulate growth?

I understand how every philosophy says that it's never been tried. In the case of the Soviets their version of capitalism was the inevitable evolution of Marxism. But really, how does a centrally managed banking system with gov't bail-outs evolve from Randian thought?

If one person has egg on their face from the market melt-downs it's Keynes. But then his cop-out is that he advocated raising taxes during strong times to pay off debts.

Goban: I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

I understand that is what she wanted men to do, but she didn't understand people well enough to know that men are incapable of such a request.

Howard Roark in The Fountainhead is a mild sociopath and she pronounced he was her ideal man.

Rapmaster2000: The sunk cost fallacy is an intellectual trick that our emotions can play on us.

Exactly. And it's one of a slew of different tricks our brains play on us. Our cognitive systems evolved to solve a very specific set of problems, and economic theory is not one of them. Rational actors are easier to model, but real humans are not rational.

lordmoose: Did "Bob the Angry Flower" even read Atlas Shrugged? Galt's Gulch already had a self-sustaining village well before society collapsed.

No he didn't and neither have 95% of the people who hate her, though I that is mainly due to most of her followers are totally self absorbed ass-wipes.

The whole cartoon is rather revealing as to what certain people think of certain other people. People like this cartoonist actually think that anyone who doesn't think like they do are evil oppressors of the proletariat. I will give him credit for his Bob's Quick guide to the Apostrophe (new window).