The derivatives and other financial products market that just trashed the US economy was as close to a laissez faire capitalistic market as the real world can accomodate - unregulated, unsupervised, unencumbered by foreign or domestic law, unencumbered by geography or language or religion or inconvenient features of its commodities or social custom or traditional responsibility, entirely voluntary and ungoverned free market exchange. It was a Rand Utopia, and consciously so - its arrangement was overseen by Rand devotees. It was a fucking disaster. It became immediately a pirate's nest of scam artists ripping each other off for billions, and wrecking the entire financial system they inhabited.
The difference between why we don't have a recession in India and you do in the US is regulation. If we had followed Ayn Rands model, we'd have got sucked into it. Fortunately the government resisted all attempts to deregulate the banks.
But if that's all you get from her writings, then you've missed the most of it, I think. Although I'm not completely familiar with those ideas of hers, and I have to say I'd agree with you, if that's what they truly are. This calls for a revision on my part, pending further investigation.
I called it "as close as the real world can accommodate". It's what Ayn Rand advocated all her life, anyway - and most people seem comfortable referring to Rand as an advocate of laissez faire capitalism.
I don't agree with this, and from what I've read it's impossible to tell why some countries aren't hit as hard. The two biggest reasons I've read for India's economy avoiding the current recession: India's exports to the west have been vital textiles, telecom services and brainpower, which are the last to be touched by a depression. India didn't have a property market to bust. So much of India remains un-modernized that it could hardly be scratched by an international crisis. Rice growers, for example, don't give a damned about commodities trade in NYC or London. It's also vital to point out that by NOT modernizing and opening it's borders to the kinds of investment that has now spurred the Chinese economy, India has remained ten to twenty years behind as a result. This fact has permitted more than 400 million to remain in hideous poverty and squalor which China is now successfully (by comparison) curbing because of their larger GDP. Even during a recession, an India which had industrialized at the same rate as China would still be better off than the India that we see today. ~String
Woah; hasn't the US adopted "laissez faire" since about, say the dawn of the Industrial Age? It was accelerated after (and during) WWII, right? That was a big "economy savior" (savior faire) for the US industrial/capitalist machine, non?
Your first sentence was the correct one. Ayn Rand simply believes in freedom. The freedom to live as you please. The freedom to achieve as much as you can, whatever that may be, without a coersive government there to control your every move in the name of "the people".
I always found her to be the perfect representative of her writings. Narcissistic, unsympathetic, lacking empathy and with an attitude of paying back the world for what she had to go through. I would think she would appeal to those who were similarly isolated, insensitive to other people's feelings and incapable of seeing another perspective but their own and with a feeling that the world was against them. Like teenagers. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I will confess that I've not read any of her stuff since I was a teenager. I've been meaning to dig up my copy of Atlas Shrugged and read it again. Who knows, perhaps on a second reading 20 plus years later I'll decide I've been backwards on this whole deal and become a liberal.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Have you read any of her novels SAM? Perhaps we could start a Sciforums bookclub and read one together. Then we could read something by Chomsky, or whoever. Each member could suggest a book and we'd go thru the list. MIght be a way to actually have an informed debate and maybe even change some people's minds.
Yeah I read her books when I was a teenager. Then I read the Fountainhead again after I saw a Pakistani television drama based on it. Honestly, she didn't impress me much the first time I read her, I though she was very debasing of women [note her women characters are spineless fools who want to be treated with no respect]. I liked her even less later on. I'm not particularly fond of writers who treat women like trash.
It was alright, Rahat Kazmi makes any character look good and his wife Saira is an excellent director. The context was altered to make it fit their society [no rape of Dominique for instance and everyone was very civilised in their disputes]. But the Pakistani dramas generally follow the plot in their adaptations which is a pity. It would be more exciting if they were to rewrite the story to an Asian context. I can't find it with subtitles but here it is http://www.thepakistani.tv/i/2933/pakistani-tv-dramas/teesra-kinara-ep-01.htm
Pick something short, or in short chapters. The man's prose is lethally dull. My mother once observed that when those books came out she was famous for allowing her women independence without having them ritually punished for it - that in those days, women in novels who overtly sought what they actually wanted other than happy babies in kitchens, and had the means to enforce their choices, were rare, and usually given bad fates. Sounds like it was altered so that it would not fit their society. Too bad.
Thats interesting, because my mother thought that she treated women as if they had to be men at work and irrelevant otherwise.
There's no point in taking any of Rand's characters seriously, but in the political context of 1950s Ohio it didn't play as "had to" be men at work, but "able to" be men at work. And the irrelevance otherwise was contrasted with the "otherwise" being women's only relevance, elsewhere.
Maybe its context, but her women were all sexually submissive and in fact competed with men they did not want to really defeat, since they only admired successful men. Plus they seemed to all have the mentality that society was against them and whatever thy built would be destroyed anyway. I'm trying to think who her contemporary writers were , since she seemed to me at the time, unnecessarily misogynistic. If I had adapted the play, Reardon would be a woman.
What you think is just that, a thought, and has no real basis in actuality, therefor has little credibility. Who among us can speak for others but ourselves?
