answered question
answers (9)
Rand would throw a major hissy fit. Rand believed in a pure (even naive) form of capitalism, in which a few entrepreneurs would create the industries that would employ the rest of us, and we should be grateful for those jobs.
Anything that interfered with those entrepreneurs is "looting". No form of taxation is justified: anything we need would be provided by those entrepreneurs, who would discover the need and fill it, for a price lower than we'd get from taxation.
Rand would be horrified at the state of the US government today. Bailing out automakers prevents smaller, more innovative companies from rising in their places. (Exactly what the workers for the current manufacturers are supposed to eat in the meantime is their problem.) Same for bailing out the banks; it prevents us from learning our lessons about what the market really wants. Social welfare programs cause laziness among workers. Stimulus programs pick the wrong winners and losers.
I find Rand's notion of capitalism naive. She admired the capitalists of the 19th century, when the US government had no income tax and almost no regulations. She felt that the captains of industry earned their positions, and that anybody who didn't earn it themselves must be lazy or dumb. No matter what your starting state, if you are diligent and smart you'll get rich.
That's patently untrue; many smart, hard-working people are unable to escape their circumstances. The robber barons Rand admired used their monopolistic powers to stifle competition, and the result blurred market signals even more than government does. They abused their workers who couldn't fight back because they had no money, and unions formed precisely to give the workers collective power they lacked as individuals.
Many people place a lot of blame for the current situation on Alan Greenspan, one of Rand's disciples. He let the reins of government fiscal policy loose to encourage economic boom, just as Rand said they would. But much of that economic boom was false, distorting the market signals Rand claimed were necessary to save us, and the resulting crash causes widespread harm.
There is much good and necessary in Rand. Her work is largely a refutation of communism, against which she had a vendetta as the Communists forced her family to flee Russia when she was young. Rand's work is very important in showing how capitalism can succeed: people appealing to their own self-interests can take advantage of each other for economic success in the long run. It's not at all intuitive how greed can be more effective than sharing, and her case is compelling.
But her views of entrepreneurs are overly rosy: they're no less likely to be short-sighted than anybody else, and make the same mistakes.
We need to be hearing Rand's message right now; the government has gotten far too big and spends far too much money on the wrong things. But her message must also be taken with an eye to the things it gets wrong as well as the things it gets right.
Anything that interfered with those entrepreneurs is "looting". No form of taxation is justified: anything we need would be provided by those entrepreneurs, who would discover the need and fill it, for a price lower than we'd get from taxation.
Rand would be horrified at the state of the US government today. Bailing out automakers prevents smaller, more innovative companies from rising in their places. (Exactly what the workers for the current manufacturers are supposed to eat in the meantime is their problem.) Same for bailing out the banks; it prevents us from learning our lessons about what the market really wants. Social welfare programs cause laziness among workers. Stimulus programs pick the wrong winners and losers.
I find Rand's notion of capitalism naive. She admired the capitalists of the 19th century, when the US government had no income tax and almost no regulations. She felt that the captains of industry earned their positions, and that anybody who didn't earn it themselves must be lazy or dumb. No matter what your starting state, if you are diligent and smart you'll get rich.
That's patently untrue; many smart, hard-working people are unable to escape their circumstances. The robber barons Rand admired used their monopolistic powers to stifle competition, and the result blurred market signals even more than government does. They abused their workers who couldn't fight back because they had no money, and unions formed precisely to give the workers collective power they lacked as individuals.
Many people place a lot of blame for the current situation on Alan Greenspan, one of Rand's disciples. He let the reins of government fiscal policy loose to encourage economic boom, just as Rand said they would. But much of that economic boom was false, distorting the market signals Rand claimed were necessary to save us, and the resulting crash causes widespread harm.
There is much good and necessary in Rand. Her work is largely a refutation of communism, against which she had a vendetta as the Communists forced her family to flee Russia when she was young. Rand's work is very important in showing how capitalism can succeed: people appealing to their own self-interests can take advantage of each other for economic success in the long run. It's not at all intuitive how greed can be more effective than sharing, and her case is compelling.
But her views of entrepreneurs are overly rosy: they're no less likely to be short-sighted than anybody else, and make the same mistakes.
We need to be hearing Rand's message right now; the government has gotten far too big and spends far too much money on the wrong things. But her message must also be taken with an eye to the things it gets wrong as well as the things it gets right.
voted helpful: stanar, chriswingate, brian san, dbiddie, krysstel
Voted as best: chriswingate, christhomson
Good news! Your answer was nominated by me for the 8/3 Answer of the Day Contest!
Tip chriswingate for this comment
|
Report
This article by Alex Epstein from the "Financial Post" on 8 April sums it up very well
What must be done to recover from this financial crisis? Barack Obama rightly stresses that we first must understand how today’s problems emerged. It is “only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament."
Unfortunately, Obama (along with most of the Washington establishment) has created only misunderstanding. In calling for a massive increase in government control over the economy, he has evaded the mountain of evidence implicating the government.
For example, Obama’s core explanation of all the destructive behavior leading up to today’s crisis is that the market was too free. But the market that led to today’s crisis was systematically manipulated by government. Fact: this decade saw drastic attempts by the government to control the housing and financial markets--via a Federal Reserve that cut interest rates to all-time lows, and via a gigantic increase in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s size and influence. Fact: through these entities, the government sought to “stimulate the economy” and promote homeownership (sound familiar?) by artificially extending cheap credit to home-buyers. Fact: most of the (very few) economists who actually predicted the financial crisis blame Fed policy or housing policy for inflating a bubble that was bound to collapse.
How does all this evidence factor into Obama’s understanding of “how we arrived at this moment”? It doesn’t. Not once, during the solemn 52 minutes and 5,902 words of his speech to Congress did he mention the Fed, Fannie, or Freddie. Not once did he suggest that government manipulation of markets could have any possible role in the present crisis. He just went full steam ahead and called for more spending, more intervention, and more government housing programs as the solution.
But a genuine explanation of the financial crisis must take into account all the facts. What role did the Fed play? What about Fannie and Freddie? To be sure, some companies and CEOs seem to have made irrational business decisions. Was the primary cause “greed,” as so many claim--and what does this even mean? Or was the primary cause government intervention like artificially low interest rates, which distorted economic decision-making and encouraged less competent and more reckless companies and CEOs while marginalizing and paralyzing the more competent ones?
Entertaining such questions would also mean considering the idea that the fundamental solution to our problems is to disentangle the government from the markets to prevent future manipulation. It would mean considering pro-free-market remedies such as letting banks foreclose, letting prices reach market levels, letting bad banks fail, dismantling Fannie and Freddie, ending bailout promises, and getting rid of the Fed’s power to manipulate interest rates.
But it is not genuine understanding the administration seeks. For them, the wisdom and necessity of previous government intervention is self-evident; no matter the contrary evidence, the crisis can only have been caused by insufficient government intervention. Besides, they are too busy following Obama’s chief of staff’s dictum, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” by proposing a virtual takeover of not only financial markets, but also the problem-riddled energy and health-care markets--which, they conveniently ignore, are also already among the most government-controlled in the economy.
While Obama has not sought a real explanation of today’s economic problems, Americans should. Otherwise, we will simply swallow “solutions” that dogmatically assume the free market got us here--namely, Obama’s plans to swamp this country in an ocean of government debt, government controls, and government make-work projects. But alternative, free-market explanations for the crisis do exist--ones that consider the inconvenient facts Washington ignores--and every American should seek to understand them.
Those who do will likely end up telling our leaders to stop saying “Yes, we can” to each new proposal for expanding government power, and start saying “Yes, you can” to Americans who seek to exercise their right to produce and trade on a free market.
What must be done to recover from this financial crisis? Barack Obama rightly stresses that we first must understand how today’s problems emerged. It is “only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament."
Unfortunately, Obama (along with most of the Washington establishment) has created only misunderstanding. In calling for a massive increase in government control over the economy, he has evaded the mountain of evidence implicating the government.
For example, Obama’s core explanation of all the destructive behavior leading up to today’s crisis is that the market was too free. But the market that led to today’s crisis was systematically manipulated by government. Fact: this decade saw drastic attempts by the government to control the housing and financial markets--via a Federal Reserve that cut interest rates to all-time lows, and via a gigantic increase in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s size and influence. Fact: through these entities, the government sought to “stimulate the economy” and promote homeownership (sound familiar?) by artificially extending cheap credit to home-buyers. Fact: most of the (very few) economists who actually predicted the financial crisis blame Fed policy or housing policy for inflating a bubble that was bound to collapse.
How does all this evidence factor into Obama’s understanding of “how we arrived at this moment”? It doesn’t. Not once, during the solemn 52 minutes and 5,902 words of his speech to Congress did he mention the Fed, Fannie, or Freddie. Not once did he suggest that government manipulation of markets could have any possible role in the present crisis. He just went full steam ahead and called for more spending, more intervention, and more government housing programs as the solution.
But a genuine explanation of the financial crisis must take into account all the facts. What role did the Fed play? What about Fannie and Freddie? To be sure, some companies and CEOs seem to have made irrational business decisions. Was the primary cause “greed,” as so many claim--and what does this even mean? Or was the primary cause government intervention like artificially low interest rates, which distorted economic decision-making and encouraged less competent and more reckless companies and CEOs while marginalizing and paralyzing the more competent ones?
Entertaining such questions would also mean considering the idea that the fundamental solution to our problems is to disentangle the government from the markets to prevent future manipulation. It would mean considering pro-free-market remedies such as letting banks foreclose, letting prices reach market levels, letting bad banks fail, dismantling Fannie and Freddie, ending bailout promises, and getting rid of the Fed’s power to manipulate interest rates.
But it is not genuine understanding the administration seeks. For them, the wisdom and necessity of previous government intervention is self-evident; no matter the contrary evidence, the crisis can only have been caused by insufficient government intervention. Besides, they are too busy following Obama’s chief of staff’s dictum, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” by proposing a virtual takeover of not only financial markets, but also the problem-riddled energy and health-care markets--which, they conveniently ignore, are also already among the most government-controlled in the economy.
While Obama has not sought a real explanation of today’s economic problems, Americans should. Otherwise, we will simply swallow “solutions” that dogmatically assume the free market got us here--namely, Obama’s plans to swamp this country in an ocean of government debt, government controls, and government make-work projects. But alternative, free-market explanations for the crisis do exist--ones that consider the inconvenient facts Washington ignores--and every American should seek to understand them.
Those who do will likely end up telling our leaders to stop saying “Yes, we can” to each new proposal for expanding government power, and start saying “Yes, you can” to Americans who seek to exercise their right to produce and trade on a free market.
good thoughts from the reference page, but I believe the question is about "How would Ayn Rand react to the current policies ...."
With the current economic climate and increased government intervention, Ayn Rand would not only be disturbed, but also somewhat excited. In many ways, her predictions are playing out beautifully. If more policies resembling current policies are passed, then the talented wealthy businessmen of America will take their skills elsewhere.
Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged based on a simple question:”What if I went on strike? What if all the creative minds of the world went on strike” (Wikipedia)? ‘Creative minds' denotes all successful or eccentric people who contribute to society. These people are better than others, more capable and talented, and therefore should receive more for their labors.
Her fictional novel, Atlas Shrugged, is a simple interpretation of an impending reality. As Americans, we embrace ingenuity, specialization, merit, the ability to succeed. As the margin between the successful and the unsuccessful grows larger, the less successful people of the free market grow restless. The unsuccessful feel cheated and helpless. If the wealthy have all the money, then there is no way for the average worker to rise to the top. Questions are raised concerning the wealthy – Do they in fact deserve what they earn?
Ayn Rand’s novel replies with a resounding yes. In her novel, the wealthy take their talents and wealth and leave the rest of society to rot in its own inability. Ayn Rand wish to prove with her fictional scenario two things: That some men are better than other and that these men who are truly better should earn far more than the rest of society.
Ayn Rand believed in a simple capitalism with little government intervention or control. If Rand were to glimpse the extent to which the government has woven it’s way around free markets and even ingenuity, she would be shocked.
The U.S. recently implemented a new bill to restrict the salaries of CEO’s and other high paying positions. Any company with more than roughly a billion in assets would not have an adequate say in how their employees were paid. For companies that rely on risky business decisions to make sizable profits, this is detrimental. Banks would suffer greatly. Executives who lack the security of a comfortable salary and company assets will not make risky decisions if they cannot afford to make them.
The American public, what Rand would categorize as the less successful, are outraged and torn by this, they don’t want the federal government telling them what they can and can’t earn. It infringes on liberty in more ways than one. However, the people do not want the leaders of important companies spending money gained from bailouts on frivolous and ineffective endeavors.
The torn American public is seeing the direct affects of an overly involved federal government…something Rand would adamantly oppose. If the government would not have implemented a bailout, then American constituents would strike down a bill to tamper with salaries immediately, and with incredulity. Because of the bailouts, the reverse is in effect. Normally, million dollar bonuses to important positions would be seen as appropriate. Those who were successful would be paid. There would be no shock in it, but now that the government has directly involved the money of every American in the salary of CEOs…it is simply not acceptable.
“This is not the government taking over the corporate sector. . . . It is a statement by the American people that it is time for us to straighten up the ship,” - Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.
Rand would be frustrated with the current policies of the U.S. government. The ship that is in need of cleaning was created by the government, not free markets, not greedy CEOs. By continuing to “straighten up the ship,” the federal government is spinning itself into more and more involvement in the lives of the wealthy and successful, people who Rand believed were the backbone of successful thriving societies.
And of course, Rand would argue that as each successful person is cheated out of more money and general prosperity with approval, the more likely it is that every average American’s gifted child will be cheated out of their future earnings all together.
Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged based on a simple question:”What if I went on strike? What if all the creative minds of the world went on strike” (Wikipedia)? ‘Creative minds' denotes all successful or eccentric people who contribute to society. These people are better than others, more capable and talented, and therefore should receive more for their labors.
Her fictional novel, Atlas Shrugged, is a simple interpretation of an impending reality. As Americans, we embrace ingenuity, specialization, merit, the ability to succeed. As the margin between the successful and the unsuccessful grows larger, the less successful people of the free market grow restless. The unsuccessful feel cheated and helpless. If the wealthy have all the money, then there is no way for the average worker to rise to the top. Questions are raised concerning the wealthy – Do they in fact deserve what they earn?
Ayn Rand’s novel replies with a resounding yes. In her novel, the wealthy take their talents and wealth and leave the rest of society to rot in its own inability. Ayn Rand wish to prove with her fictional scenario two things: That some men are better than other and that these men who are truly better should earn far more than the rest of society.
Ayn Rand believed in a simple capitalism with little government intervention or control. If Rand were to glimpse the extent to which the government has woven it’s way around free markets and even ingenuity, she would be shocked.
The U.S. recently implemented a new bill to restrict the salaries of CEO’s and other high paying positions. Any company with more than roughly a billion in assets would not have an adequate say in how their employees were paid. For companies that rely on risky business decisions to make sizable profits, this is detrimental. Banks would suffer greatly. Executives who lack the security of a comfortable salary and company assets will not make risky decisions if they cannot afford to make them.
The American public, what Rand would categorize as the less successful, are outraged and torn by this, they don’t want the federal government telling them what they can and can’t earn. It infringes on liberty in more ways than one. However, the people do not want the leaders of important companies spending money gained from bailouts on frivolous and ineffective endeavors.
The torn American public is seeing the direct affects of an overly involved federal government…something Rand would adamantly oppose. If the government would not have implemented a bailout, then American constituents would strike down a bill to tamper with salaries immediately, and with incredulity. Because of the bailouts, the reverse is in effect. Normally, million dollar bonuses to important positions would be seen as appropriate. Those who were successful would be paid. There would be no shock in it, but now that the government has directly involved the money of every American in the salary of CEOs…it is simply not acceptable.
“This is not the government taking over the corporate sector. . . . It is a statement by the American people that it is time for us to straighten up the ship,” - Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.
Rand would be frustrated with the current policies of the U.S. government. The ship that is in need of cleaning was created by the government, not free markets, not greedy CEOs. By continuing to “straighten up the ship,” the federal government is spinning itself into more and more involvement in the lives of the wealthy and successful, people who Rand believed were the backbone of successful thriving societies.
And of course, Rand would argue that as each successful person is cheated out of more money and general prosperity with approval, the more likely it is that every average American’s gifted child will be cheated out of their future earnings all together.
Ayn Rand was born in Russia in 1905, her family lost much of their wealth and property during the Russian revolution, she left Russia to move to USA,and remained there, even though she said it would only be a visit. She married an actor, FrankO'Connor in New York, in 1926 and lived with him until his death. She wrote her most famous novel "Atlas Shrugged," in 1957, a story of politics, economics, sex. If she were alive today, she would be alarmed by the Obama policies in the USA today, property confiscation, seizing banking institutions and automobile manufacturing companies without due process of law. Plus the constant printing of money, and frivolous spending practices similar to the billions squandered to AIG....
source(s):
Wall Street Journal, Ayn Rand, a biography by Jeff Briting.
Wall Street Journal, Ayn Rand, a biography by Jeff Briting.
Ayn Rand would most likely, based on her philosophies, respond by saying that America and it's citizens only act as they do because of the effect of the media, by only seeing the horrors in the media and taking constant implied criticism the citizens of the U.S. are subconsciously adding to the "drama" of the times. When in reality we have life pretty good right now, the war is minimal compared to what it was, and the basic priorities of the average American is diminished to "The Bad Economy". She would say that we are stupid, and that we should look at the grass that we stand on currently as greener, rather than being bitter to those in "Greener Grass".
She'd write a book. "Atlas Shrugged II: Rearden's Revenge"
Then, in one of the few industries still resembling capitalism, she'd turn it into a blockbuster movie. She'd sell tchotchke with abandon.
She would see one last chance to shrug off governmental burdens before we collapsed under its weight. It's no longer a planet of woes...it's turning into a soul-sucking black hole.
Ayn Rand would jump out of her fiction and take on her own characters' roles. Forget alloys and chemicals from the 30s-60s. Forget pushing bits from the 90s. Forget about corporate sponsorship and finacial bundling.
It's all about energy. You can't do anything without it. Your sand dune of a nation can be rich by controlling it. Your imperialistic (or radical) views can cause fear by wielding it as a weapon.
Back to the underground, where the new society will use geothermal reactions for everything. Canyons and force fields.
OK...seriously. Regardless of how the economy is performing, she'd be skipping happy to walk out of Valhalla, resurrected/reconstitued, and cured of cancer and heart disease.
Maybe chemicals are the continuing way of the future. So she'd have biochemists instead of metallurgists...but still some force fields involved somewhere.
Then, in one of the few industries still resembling capitalism, she'd turn it into a blockbuster movie. She'd sell tchotchke with abandon.
She would see one last chance to shrug off governmental burdens before we collapsed under its weight. It's no longer a planet of woes...it's turning into a soul-sucking black hole.
Ayn Rand would jump out of her fiction and take on her own characters' roles. Forget alloys and chemicals from the 30s-60s. Forget pushing bits from the 90s. Forget about corporate sponsorship and finacial bundling.
It's all about energy. You can't do anything without it. Your sand dune of a nation can be rich by controlling it. Your imperialistic (or radical) views can cause fear by wielding it as a weapon.
Back to the underground, where the new society will use geothermal reactions for everything. Canyons and force fields.
OK...seriously. Regardless of how the economy is performing, she'd be skipping happy to walk out of Valhalla, resurrected/reconstitued, and cured of cancer and heart disease.
Maybe chemicals are the continuing way of the future. So she'd have biochemists instead of metallurgists...but still some force fields involved somewhere.
Frankly, I think she'd laugh her head off (and probably write a 50-page speech as an op-ed somewhere).
While Rand is known for advocacy of some pure form of capitalism, it's more accurate - using Atlas Shrugged as a reflection of her ideas - to say she's an advocate of pure entrepreneurism. The heroes of the book were people of great ability who were willing to take the risks - and reap the profits - of their genius. Corporations getting lobbyists to pay lawmakers for advantageous legislation and tax breaks were derided in the book as practicing the "politics of pull." The boards of directors, government officials, and even celebrities who could wield power over people with ability were the targets of her contempt, and even the revolving door between corporations and elected officials was hinted at in her book. And she was merciless toward ordinary citizens who parroted the popular ideas of the time (Remember the scene at the abandoned auto plant where Galt worked? Or the coal powered train heading through the tunnel?)
The scenario where mega-corporations get no-bid contracts because of whom they know, are bailed out because they are "too big to fail", and pay off legislators to fund projects that are neither needed nor wanted is precisely what she warned about. It could be seamlessly written into Atlas Shrugged. And while I am unaware of a walkout of genius entrepreneurs, the fiscal state of the U.S. is sufficiently disastrous to be the "told you so" ending to the story.
My guess is she'd condemn the populace for being so self-involved they couldn't spare the time for the last forty years to pay attention to their own governance. (Mind you, I'm aware that not everyone fits this mold, but Rand tended to paint with a wide brush.) She'd mock the contradiction inherent to career politicians who damn government - as if they weren't part of the government themselves. She'd point out the irony and criminality where banks and financial institutions made patently unsustainable loans and thought that by selling these instruments in pieces they could dodge the consequences. She'd laugh as those who hold the reins of finance in the U.S. had to shovel endless stacks of cash to the banks, who then shoveled bonuses back at the very executives that created the mess in the first place. And she'd gloat about the entrepreneurs who have done just fine, thank you, despite taxes and regulations.
While Rand is known for advocacy of some pure form of capitalism, it's more accurate - using Atlas Shrugged as a reflection of her ideas - to say she's an advocate of pure entrepreneurism. The heroes of the book were people of great ability who were willing to take the risks - and reap the profits - of their genius. Corporations getting lobbyists to pay lawmakers for advantageous legislation and tax breaks were derided in the book as practicing the "politics of pull." The boards of directors, government officials, and even celebrities who could wield power over people with ability were the targets of her contempt, and even the revolving door between corporations and elected officials was hinted at in her book. And she was merciless toward ordinary citizens who parroted the popular ideas of the time (Remember the scene at the abandoned auto plant where Galt worked? Or the coal powered train heading through the tunnel?)
The scenario where mega-corporations get no-bid contracts because of whom they know, are bailed out because they are "too big to fail", and pay off legislators to fund projects that are neither needed nor wanted is precisely what she warned about. It could be seamlessly written into Atlas Shrugged. And while I am unaware of a walkout of genius entrepreneurs, the fiscal state of the U.S. is sufficiently disastrous to be the "told you so" ending to the story.
My guess is she'd condemn the populace for being so self-involved they couldn't spare the time for the last forty years to pay attention to their own governance. (Mind you, I'm aware that not everyone fits this mold, but Rand tended to paint with a wide brush.) She'd mock the contradiction inherent to career politicians who damn government - as if they weren't part of the government themselves. She'd point out the irony and criminality where banks and financial institutions made patently unsustainable loans and thought that by selling these instruments in pieces they could dodge the consequences. She'd laugh as those who hold the reins of finance in the U.S. had to shovel endless stacks of cash to the banks, who then shoveled bonuses back at the very executives that created the mess in the first place. And she'd gloat about the entrepreneurs who have done just fine, thank you, despite taxes and regulations.
source(s):
Atlas Shrugged
Atlas Shrugged
Voted as best: misinheritance
One of the interesting stats I came across was that 50% of all California taxes are paid by 141,000 people (a state with 30mm inhabitants). This hit home as I had recently finished Atlas Shrugged. If 141,000 affluent people in CA went "on strike", CA would be done for... another reason you can't keep increasing taxes to pay for unaccountable gov't programs that offer poor services.
Travis Kalanick
http://twitter.com/konatbone
Travis Kalanick
http://twitter.com/konatbone
Not to dwell on the obvious, we can start by saying she would hate Obama's stimulus, health, and carbon plans.
The question is how she would have responded to the TEA with sugar crowd. These are the people who want to pay less taxes, but want no rationing of health care - especially not by Medicare and Medicaid. Both programs are funded largely by taxpayers, although some of medicare is funded by the premiums.
Would she have laughed the TEA with sugar crowd to scorn, mocked the self righteous politicians who couldn't cut spending but promised their tax cuts would force future politicians to do so? Would a new edition of Atlas Shrugged include a cut and spend politician, who cheerfully agrees to John Galt's demand to cut taxes, directing the cuts to his favorite looters, and claiming his successor will cut benefits to that same group of looters? Would she have continued her denunciations of Ronald Reagan, and expanded them? Who knows, would John Galt have gotten lung cancer and denounced those who attacked government regulation of cigarettes?
My guess is that the answer to all these questions is no. She might have criticized Medicare and Medicaid, but would not go so far as to decry the TEA-without-rationing crowd more loudly than those who knew they had to be paid for. Despite her various feuds with public figures and people in her private life, she did not insult her readers in the books they read. She knew which side her bread was buttered on, hence her rejection of the anarcho-capitalists and their war on copyright.
Would she dare address the other elephant in the room? Why has China built its industry so quickly and successfully, despite the industrial policy of their government? She often alluded to Russia's failures. Would she have given some thought to China's success?
She might have had some interesting ideas, although not ones that modern libertarians would want to hear. China doesn't have government healthcare, or even much private insurance. No does the goverment make them keep an emergency room to help all comers. Pensions are rarer too, and there is no social security. The challenge of the next century will be to keep as much of these as possible, and still compete with the motivated workers of China. The Chinese themselves are a little tired of all this motivation, and looking into the idea of universal healthcare. Who knows?
The question is how she would have responded to the TEA with sugar crowd. These are the people who want to pay less taxes, but want no rationing of health care - especially not by Medicare and Medicaid. Both programs are funded largely by taxpayers, although some of medicare is funded by the premiums.
Would she have laughed the TEA with sugar crowd to scorn, mocked the self righteous politicians who couldn't cut spending but promised their tax cuts would force future politicians to do so? Would a new edition of Atlas Shrugged include a cut and spend politician, who cheerfully agrees to John Galt's demand to cut taxes, directing the cuts to his favorite looters, and claiming his successor will cut benefits to that same group of looters? Would she have continued her denunciations of Ronald Reagan, and expanded them? Who knows, would John Galt have gotten lung cancer and denounced those who attacked government regulation of cigarettes?
My guess is that the answer to all these questions is no. She might have criticized Medicare and Medicaid, but would not go so far as to decry the TEA-without-rationing crowd more loudly than those who knew they had to be paid for. Despite her various feuds with public figures and people in her private life, she did not insult her readers in the books they read. She knew which side her bread was buttered on, hence her rejection of the anarcho-capitalists and their war on copyright.
Would she dare address the other elephant in the room? Why has China built its industry so quickly and successfully, despite the industrial policy of their government? She often alluded to Russia's failures. Would she have given some thought to China's success?
She might have had some interesting ideas, although not ones that modern libertarians would want to hear. China doesn't have government healthcare, or even much private insurance. No does the goverment make them keep an emergency room to help all comers. Pensions are rarer too, and there is no social security. The challenge of the next century will be to keep as much of these as possible, and still compete with the motivated workers of China. The Chinese themselves are a little tired of all this motivation, and looking into the idea of universal healthcare. Who knows?
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
