From: sa114984@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Steven Arnold)
Subject: Re: Failure of Objectivism(7)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 03:49:07 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1993Jan4.054534.19899@netcom.com>, mward@netcom.com (Michael Ward) writes:
|> The nearest we have gotten to an experiment in the value of
|> Objectivism was the era of Reaganomics.

	This is wholesale nonsense.  The closest we in the United States have
ever gotten to lassiez-faire was in the 1800's and early 1900's.  During that
time we experienced growth and prosperity ever-before unheard of in the history
of the world.

|>  The eighties were the triumph
|> of objectivism, as the virtues of selfishness led directly to the
|> wholesale looting of the economy and the treasury.

	While building up such a massive debt is certainly just another form of
theft (theft, in this case, from future generations), I don't believe all the
deficit spending is primarily responsible for the national economic growth during
the 80's (which, by the way, though extensive, was nothing compared to growth
during the early 1900's).  Most of the deficit spending funded statist programs
like Social Security, Medicare, etc -- NOT the so-called "economy-boosting"
spending like infrastructure spending.

|>   Massive debt was
|> incurred, not to increase productivity, but to funnel personal wealth
|> into individual pockets.

	In fact, a good many (something like 30 percent) of the people in the top
national income quintile dropped to a lower quintile in the 80's (see: greed,
decade of).  Meanwhile, a majority of the people in the lowest quintile moved up
in the '80s, 15 percent or so of them to the highest quintile.  I'll provide the
documentation shortly; I don't have it here with me.

|>  This debt was incurred without regard to any
|> ability to repay it, and the wealth that individuals accrued was kept
|> in spite of severe and predictable inability to repay.  Property
|> prices were artificially ballooned to extreme levels by a cynical and
|> criminal manipulation of the Savings and Loan and banking industries,
|> making those who understood what was happening fantastically wealthy
|> and those who were marginally surviving homeless.

	The manipulation of the Savings and Loan industry was a manipulation, not
by private people, but by government controllers.  The free market would have
dictated that the Savings and Loans tighen up on loans, but the policies of the
Federal Reserve resulted in an undue overextension of bad loans, which came home
to roost.  The execs, of course, didn't have to worry, since it wasn't their
money: Joe Taxpayer would pay for it, because of the FDIC.  Once again, statism
rears its ugly head.  It is statism, my friend, staism and NOT lassiez-faire or
anything like it, which caused the Savings and Loan mess.  Take responsiblity for
the policies you defend!  The policies you defend have CAUSED the Savings and
Loan mess!

|>  And the poor saps
|> who just wanted to buy a home have been left holding the bag.

	True.  Statism usually ends up being a bad deal primarily for the little
guy: the rich folks can often buy their way out of it.

|> It might be argued that this looting was not performed by
|> Objectivists.

	It might be and it should be.  It was performed, not by Objectivists, but
by statists, the very folks you seem to be defending.

|>  I suppose that all true Objectivists are safe and
|> secure academics who would never dream of actually doing anything.
|> Reaganomics was driven by people who were happy to take the precepts
|> of Objectivism to their logical conclusion.

	Nonsense.  Reaganomics implemented only some Objectivist ideas, but
largely due to a cache of statists in Congress (in the vernacular, most of the
Democrats), many Objectivist ideas had no chance of being implemented.
	Would you expect a machine to work if half its parts were removed?  Then
why do you expect Objectivism to work if crucial parts are ignored?  We cannot
have a "government-regulated" lassiez-faire economy: such a thing is oxymoronic.

|>  The looting of the nation
|> in the eighties was performed by people looking out for number one,

	True.  People who were looking out for number one to the extent that they
would violate the rights of others.  Such is not the philosophy of Objectivism. 
Your misrepresentations are running rampant.

|> ...and it's a small semantic leap from "the virtue of selfishness" to
|> "greed is good".  The result is immediately visible.  We are all now
|> suffering from its damage.

	Hogwash.  What we are suffering from is short-sighted government control
over an economy.  An economy should never be run by a government; it should be
run by a free market.  A free market will have its ups and downs, but it will, in
the long run, result in propserity.  Unlike statism.

|> It might also be argued that Objectivism was not truly unleashed in
|> the eighties,

	Indeed it could be.  And should be.  For it wasn't "unleashed" in the
'80s, except in a half-ass and utterly incomplete way.

|> ...that it was still restrained by some regulation.  Still,
|> what little we did see of this way of thought was sobering enough.

	Ha!  What we saw was a VERY little Objectivism (as applied to economics)
mixed in with a whole bunch of statism; yet you're prepared to blame it all on
Objectivism and not give statism a second glance!

|>  If
|> this experiment is to be continued, I very selfishly hope that it is
|> conducted on someone else's economy.  The Russians have recently lost
|> an ideology and have shown themselves capable of withstanding almost
|> infinite misery.  Maybe it could be tried there.

	Try Poland if you want to see the BEGINNINGS of a lassiez-faire economy. 
They're growing rapidly.  I predict Poland will out-develop Germany if it stays
on course within the next 50 years.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism