"the most dangerous thing in this country today is the university, because they are teaching the kinds of things that could lead to the destruction of this country" Prophet.
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY Here at LibertyPen, we revere individual liberty as a primary value, but we also believe in treating people as they would have others treated. Since you yearn for a central planner to dictate how you and your fellow man must behave, the COLLECTIVE at LibertyPen has decided to accommodate your philosophy and trump your individual liberty for what we believe is the greater good. Don't bother thanking us.
When I was a kid (40 years ago) reading Rand for homework assignments, I regret that I didn't have the appreciation I have for her today. I used to think she was simply an author with a unique and brilliant philosophy. Based on where our country is and where it's headed, it turns out that she would be more appropriately described as a prophet. Too bad we weren't listening.
Did the internet become what it is today because of government 'force' or because of millions of individuals choosing to freely to use this, at the time, unregulated tool for their own personal benefit and potential commercial profits?
This book haunts me. Rand opened my eyes and made me realize the errors of my ways, and I'd like to turn around, but I get depressed over all those choices I made in the past.
KELLI2L2 In a free market society there are no monopolies as they only come about via government interference and favors. You only want to hinder those who produce because you make and do nothing of value. Which is apparent by your insulting and useless TH-cam comment which is worth nothing to anyone and least of all yourself.
The thing is that not all people are poor because they don't work hard. Some people are just unlucky or have something tethering them to their situation like a family member that they need to take care of.
In a thriving economy unemployment is always low and temporary, there's always demand for labor, and skilled workers are precious. If a business goes bankrupt, is because it wasn't producing what the consumers expected, and thus the best possible outcome is exactly this one: bankruptcy. The people working there will find other jobs in successful businesses, of even with the experience they gained will create their own successful endeavor.
"Firstly, government is not even "capable" of changing you into something you're not." That is exactly my point! The government cannot take untalented people and make them productive members of society. People are born with different abilities and attributes. Those abilities and attributes are what create wealth. The government's job is not to "better society", it's to give society an arena in which to exist. To understand the conservative point of view, it helps to think of govt like the walls
I never did well in school and it affected where I now go to college. Up until I read Atlas Shrugged, her message really hit home...something no one has ever really done before. I'm upset now because I feel it's too late to improve my life and get a scholarship and go to an ivy league school and get a great job. I just want to know it's not too late.
@StunnedByStupidity I am tickled when the truth affects certain individuals much like the devil is affected by holy water. It can be very discomforting. Rand was a powerhouse of truth and insight.
I'd like to thank Liberty Pen for compiling and posting this fairly succinct presentation of Rand's viewpoints. Whether you are a leftist or a Randian or anything else, this clip allows viewers to see Rand defend her views in her own words. I will certainly be using this clip in my classroom and have my students analyze her arguments presented here. Thanks again, Liberty Pen.
Ayn had explained this so clearly that if all my liberal friends watch this, they would come away with a better understanding of what role a Government plays in economics and how the one we have is the problem. This was recorded during the Carter Administration but it applies perfectly for to today. The fact that the logic and reasoning is so sound and so ignored by Academia and the political class, baffles me.
But then again Jesus did not hand anyone a temporary fix, he offered everything to the people that had nothing. Jesus basically said that if you have fish, share fish with everybody...
What Ayn says about monopolies ONLY being created by governments is a fallacy, as is easily exposed by even a small amount of research into economics and social politics. Lassiez-faire capitalism has never succeeded compared to the mixed economy. The Golden Age, late 1940's to 1970's, was the time of at least partially controlled economies. All you need to do is listen to her talk; she injects artifical political polarization into it "Intellectuals disagree with me because they are leftist intellectuals" ... No, they disagree because you are wrong.
Rand explains very clearly here that a damaging monopoly can only exist when competition is prevented by legislation. Without that, any single supplier who starts to overcharge their customer will soon be bankrupt because competitors will start up in that newly profitable market. If you say you only needed a small amount of research, can you name just one example of free market monopoly overcharging?
That's because there never has been a truly free market economy. Her view is simplistic. Damaging monopolies exist all the time and not just from legislation; production, like OPEC in 1973, Microsoft and Apple today, to name just a few. I guarantee a lot of the stuff in your house can be traces back to a few companies.
ewen clark Her comments here are simplistic, because its a TV interview. There is more detail on monopoly in her book "Capitalism - Unknown Ideal" (but you have to remember if you read it, it was written almost half century ago). Also, a current economist worth reading is Thomas Sowell. In your Microsoft example, yes they have most of the OS market, but they are not a monopoly because customers have alternatives (Apple and Linux). I use Windows, not because it is the best (it has faults), but because it is the most cost effective way to run my computers. Even the free one, linux, is too expensive because of the time and effort involved. Free market monopolies always fit that pattern, the biggest suppliers only achieve that status by offering the best all round choice to the customer. And what percentage MS have of the market does not matter to me as a customer, once I've made that free choice.
Monopolies can only exisist from the result of the trait that almost Rand most promotes, the power of human ingenuity aimed at self interest, whether it be at the hands of legislators of industrialists, the capability of human ingenuity will always allow the stronger to abbuse the weaker ( in the case the establishment of economic monopolies) and that is why government intervention is infact a necessary component of any society that promotes efficient progress and personal utility.
@meanmark1 Rand would argue it is not okay for government to interfere on the "behalf" (a term open to interpretation and often twisted by politicians) of the citizens. However, she would quickly acknowledge that it is proper for government to provide the civil court system where such matters can best be sorted out.
Check your premises. Deregulation did not lead to the collapse. It was caused by prolonged artificially low interest rates, combined by government incentives to coax individuals to borrow money they would not be able to repay. See Housing Boom & Bust by Thomas Sowell, Housing Crisis Culprits by Walter Williams, Economic Crisis Culprits by Columbia PhD Thomas Woods--TH-cam videos by LibertyPen. This house of cards was built by government. papered with money out of thin air. Your last ? is valid.
She's got it right about the "vote" for capitalism is based in mostly entrepreneurs coming forth to meet their own self-interested needs to serve the needs of others to the greater good. Now, there may be exceptions and corruption, but they are few and far between. Most who do so don't last. The best companies, those of merit that last, are honorable, or they end up going out of business.
With worker control as opposed to market control, there is inefficiency and usually shortages of particular goods as the enterprise is no longer there for the consumer, but for the employee. Most private enterprises have moved away from the 20th century hierarchical structure, to a more worker-friendly structure as both consumer and worker satisfaction is vital. I am a capitalist because I believe in mutual benefit (big profits + consumer satisfaction).
Those liar loans were the result of government action. Instruments like interest-only loans were created as a means to respond to government dictates for "affordable housing." Worse yet, Freddie and Fannie would buy the loans, providing financial institutions with no incentive for prudent lending practices. Liar loans are not products of deregulation, but rather the result of government intervention. Politicians should never be trusted over the free market (the consumer demands of you and I).
William F. Buckley on Ayn Rand: "Her scorn for charity,for altruism was such as to build up an unfeeling system" This is who inspired Congressman Paul Ryan and his reason for getting into politics.
That's just it, capitalism helps the poor more than any other system. It helps the poor be independent, it gives the poor equal opportunity to become rich, and through innovation and wealth generation it raises the standards of livings for all. As a great man once said," a rising tide lifts all boats."
The thing about Itel is that they are at the cutting edge of producing processors. While it would be easy for many to produce last-generation processors, nobody can make things that other people (intel) have just developed/invented. And if you want the newest of the new, you have to accept the price that the developer wants. After all, nobody else can do it, right? If not you could buy older, and less good stuff, for a much smaller price.
"Group of people performing labour together" is a just a means of production, and a creative mind decides the way it is to be deployed. Material wealth is the result of that creative mind, if the "group" is not there, he will find an alternative like mechanisation, that's what creativity is all about.
Often dismissed by today's intellectuals as a simpleton, Ayn Rand is a genius whose mental acumen stands head and shoulders above the vast majority of those who would judge her. To dismiss her views on capitalism as the driving force of a free society, is to doom our society to a life of government slavery! We should not fear capitalism...fear a government that appoints itself the guardian of the common good!
"Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on. It is not man." - Matin Luther King, Jr.
Private property exists strictly for utilitarian purposes. It is, in the words of David Hume, "An artifice of contract." If private property is no longer usefull, it should therefore be discarded.
If a man labours on someone else's property for 20 years to accumulate his own resources, and then trades them to other men for their labour to build a factory, and gives that factory to his son before he dies, and then THAT man gives the factory to his son before HE dies, then that grandson of the first man owns the factory, even if it is the only factory for a thousand miles. The man who has no BETTER means to live than working in his factory is NOT his slave.
When a worker quits, he doesn't fire his employer, he stops working. Big difference. If all the workers have a vote and decide to kick out their boss, THEN they fire their employer. This is the only way to gaurantee that people keep the fruits of their labour instead of having it forceably taken away from them by their bosses. Unions play a central role in free societies.
I'm a socialist who merely believes in worker ownership. Here's a hypothetical: No state intervention, no outside entity using any kind of force or monetary coercion on the internal affairs regarding any collective. No hierarchical control within any collective. There is no pretext provided by any government to require the enforcement of equality within any collective. People one day just decided, to abolish hierarchy. History shows it's doable. If you are a capitalist, please argue against me.
To answer your question, ask this question: what was the result of all the past bad loans? All the big players got bailed out and despite O's rhetoric about cutting salaries, his best friends (like Corzine) are Wall St bankers. Moral hazard is being applied like never before - there is no incentive for good behavior. I'm not saying failures will never occur in pure capitalism but the point is we are so far removed from that I don't see how free markets can be blamed for anything anymore
It does not mean they deserve to die. It just means it is not government's responsibility to take care of them - it is the people's responsibility; your responsibility, my responsibility. When you see a poor person, help them out and donate to charities that help them. But don't ask someone else (the government) to point a gun at another person, and forcefully take take their money in order to help the poor person - take some responsibility yourself.
According to Adam Smith, the division of labor destroys personal creativity. He said states should intervene to prevent this. If I must rent myself out as a wage slave or else I die, in what sense of the word am I "Free?"
Agreed, the PO is a disappearing business. It was only to illustrate that monopolies can only be formed by state regulations. It was a better example than the oil corps used by the interviewer in this video, which is not a monopoly (however high gas prices get)
It is only to the living individual that the concept of value exists. What promotes and enhances one's life is 'the good. What degrades and threatens one's life is 'the evil'. Life is the objective standard of value. Not any imaginary deity in the sky, nor a collective mob. There's no collective mind. Only individual one's.
A point not made on the Donahue Show was the revelation that WE DO NOT NEED OIL... it is a convenience, it is in place, it is supported, and the government has enacted rules, regulations and special considerations to support the myth, that we are utterly dependent on oil. The advances in alternate fuel systems have been made sporadically during times when government programs came and went and supported small business operations through DOE, DARPA, and other agencies, as well as tax breaks, etc.
@026SH In theory, yes. The theory of capitalism is that a smaller more efficient firm will topple a bigger less efficient one. However, this is not always true. Wal Mart was competitors, yet the business continues to grow and stifles smaller businesses from growing because they offer such low prices. Wal Mart has also bought out competitors, much like Microsoft did, to insure they will not be taken down.
(2) The first roads were, in fact, turnpikes built by businesses. The quality of these roads would vary and toll fees and privileged use of these roads was also left up to the businesses which was a real impediment to free trade. That's why gov't started to make public access roads with regulated quality of said roads. All of the largest cases of fraud and waste can be directly connected to crony capitalism and lobbyists. Corporate influence in gov't is the real issue.
@thisguy803 she did not say education was dangerous, in fact she teaches the opposite. She said that professors only teach liberal philosophy- the university exist to teach many conflicting ways of thought, not homogenize student thought based upon self interest. Even Obama recognizes that it was improper government intervention into the house market (through forced sub-primes loans) that got us into our current mess.
I am Asian. In my country, they make Levi's jeans and microprocessors are also produced. People are paid at an abysmal $0.50 an hr to produce these things, and some other things that are exported. These products go to the West and they merely put labels on them. When they come back to my country, they are worth the same as in your country. Why dont you pay us with the same money as you are paid, so I can buy the same product as I am paid? Exploitation? With capitalists, the answer is no.
Government run Healthcare also has its drawbacks. In Canada the average wait time for specialists and special tests are around 90 days where as in the U.S. the wait time is half that or much less. The standard of care is often better in the U.S. than in other places.
Practically NOBODY in this country can quit their job anytime they want to. Most of us grown-ups who live in the real world have families, rent/mortgage payments, and lives which we cannot simply abandon.
Before Legistlation was even passed against Standard Oil its market share fell to around 30% (number may even be lower, as this is off the cuff). Monopolies are impossible w/o govt. involvement setting the un-naturual barriers of entry or difficulties
We have public schools in the United States and Hospitals here arent allowed to turn people away because they cant pay. However I am not saying the Health Care system here is the best. In fact the reason why Healthcare and Insurance is so expensive here is because there isnt any competition between drug makers, medical suppliers, and insurance providers. Lobbyists have government friends allow such practices.
Free Market provides all the balance needed. When a business grows too much, it becomes inefficient and is forced to scale down or go out of business. You don't seem to realize that the stronger supporters of government intervention are the big businesses, because they can only keep themselves growing with the help of government protecting them from competition.
The fallacy of standard oil and monopoly from laissez faire is really annoying to listen to. People always try to tell you that there's a happy middle ground between free market and centralisation but will never tell you at who's expense it should be at or where the line should be drawn.
The interviewer was wrong indeed on the monopoly. If a gigantic oil company wants to chargeyou $2.5 a gallon, smaller oil companies will be able to grow, because if they charge only $1.75, they will get all the customers the gigantic oil company once had. Therefore, the small company will be able to grow, and the gigantic one will be out of business within a year or so. This is only possible if the government allows people to start their own business, and allows them to compete with the others
It's true that there will be poverty under capitalism. It's also true that throughout history, the more a system as leaned towards free-markets, the richer all the population got. In the 19th century in the US, ppl stopped being substantial farmers, living very poorly and became factory workers who were able to profit from electricity, new farming techniques, gas,... Fastest growth in human history was recorded in the US at the end of the 19th century.
No, the reason healthcare is expensive is that it is profit-driven. Every single other nation in the industrialized world has public healthcare, and every single nation has a lower healthcare cost per-capita. Capitalists are the ones who are paying the lobbyists. Don't forget that.
Yeah, but the organized force wasn't meant to be used on it's citizens, except three ways she points out; foreign aggressores (military), unlawful citizens (police), and civil disputes (court). She's pointing out that income redistribution is just using that force for the wrong purpose.
They are made more free when they can earn 75 cents a day in a sweatshop year round, then work at a garbage dump or farm for about 50 cents a day only when the weather is fair.
I'm a moderate. I don't know why you think I'm saying we should get rid of money. I'm saying that the dispersion of money should be more democratic. I'm not a libertarian, and I think sometimes people need to be forced to obey rules (ie: Traffic Laws) and we need a certain amount of economic competition, but people don't need to die just because they are poor. Hospitals should be for everyone.
@Fuctmentality 3.5 Evidence? Socialism: The USSR, China before adopting capitalism, Cuba, North Korea, India, Capitalism: The US, China after adopting capitalism, South Korea, Japan, . . . that's all I can think of off the top of my head.4. You're finally wrong, America existed like that up until the early twentieth century. This government functioned from 1776 to 1913 without a single American paying income tax.People welcomed immigration because it wasn't a drain on health care . . .
"The power you hold as an industrialist is the power to produce value" And lot's of political influence. In a free market, economic power will eventually lead to political power. This influence in politics of big economic powers will break down the free market in order to protect personal interests. In order to protect a free market, the concentration of economic power should be actively prevented.
It is probably true that economic power will lead to political power. My solution to that would then be to limit the size of government as much as possible to limit the harm they can do. The smaller you keep the government, the less significant the political power will be. Maybe my argument is too simplistic? I'm not sure. I'm open to suggestions.
@BelieversinThings 1. Answer the questions I am not asking about supply & demand 2. Statist does not mean arhcist, belief in government doesn't mean statist. & What system do you prefer to democracy? & No in socialism the state doesn't control everything. You're thinking fascism or possible state capitalism.
"There has to be sufficiently increased individual productivity to generate enough wealth to provide it" This is true. "Unions didn't make that happen" This is false. Do you know what a labor union is? It is a group of people performing labor together. All material wealth is created through labor. In capitalism the decision making process is totalitarian, with unions it is democratic. This is the difference.
Ayn Rand's belief that an individual's level of power and wealth has negligible effect on their ability to accumulate even more power and wealth, at least when compared to their innately superior suchness, is bested only by her belief that in spite of the obvious ridiculousness of the previous belief, all of us as rational beings should take her word for it that she has unlimited access to objective reality directly through her senses, and is thus right about everything.
She's talking about an intellectual philosophy and a populace that bases policy and action on peaceful cooperation among individuals, and among governments. Goodwill, peace, and trade rather than hate, bullying, force, and violence which are the standards of government actions today, allowed by the voters and passive populace. Government is only organized force. All of its policies and revenues come from a gun to be used against anyone who doesn't willingly comply, no matter with oppression.
@calm161 One of my heroes is Marine General Smedley Butler who was the highest decorated American serviceman since Washington. He served 34 years, fought in FIVE wars and was awarded the Marine Brevet Medal and TWO Congressional Medals of Honor and after he retired he wrote the book "War is a Racket" where he accused WALL STREET of being behind most US wars. The US has invaded Mexico several times, Cuba a couple of times and several ofther S. Am countries for...PROFIT.
People who think they have learned history through movies or economics through video games should not comment on serious videos. Sadly, to understand and fully appreciate Rand's philosophic insights requires more than the surface scratching such pop scholars are willing to invest. For the serious truth seeker, her book, The Virtue Of Selfishness, is the best place to start.
This is an incredibly "collectivist" idea of the market, Kenfo0. The "market," while it IS a group of individuals is actually driven by INDIVIDUAL wants, rather than "collective" wants. Not "what's best for the market." You have illustrated an excellent fallacy. Thank you.
@calm161 Mr. Lay served in the US Navy near the end of the war in Vietnam under Nixon. He was an analyst and economic researcher and wrote a report for Nixon which strongly encouraged the CONTINUATION of the war in Vietnam for the sake of the US economy. He was a strong proponent of DEregulation and a huge fan of Ayn Rand. However, please do not assume that is the only reason that I distain Rand. It is the core of her ideas that attract and inspire men like Lay to do great evil.
Ayn Rand was correct on many topics. It's possible to see that by what is happening to Comcast and other cable monopolies. Persons such as myself are boycotting Comcast because of their outrageous prices and the lack of program choices. Sure, you have to make some changes [no tv], but we humans are creative and resourceful. This opens the door for competition [internet & satellite].
Trade is not human nature itself, rather it is a PART of it. One of it's aspects in other words. Alongside trade, human nature is composed of emotions and mental diversity (not just in talent but also in thought, desires, etc), amongst other traits. Thus great wealth and prosperity are not subjected solely to one's ability to trade, but also cunningness and intelligence. A system with a government is a system with an entity that should interfere if social inequality grows outside of proportion.
@bdhcarbon, As far as healthcare goes, why is it that the market is not open to more companies to provide healthcare. The companies who offered the most beneficial services and policies at an affordable rate of the consumer. Healthcare costs are out of control not because of greedy practices by money hungry CEO's, but because on many occasions those who have health insurance over do it because in a sense it is free (included in the plan). This drives costs up for the companies and they are
The improvement of working conditions doesn't just come resources out of thin air. There has to be sufficiently increased individual productivity to generate enough wealth to provide it. Unions didn't make that happen, capitalism did. Unions arguably increased bargaining power to ensure the direction of that increased productivity, but they were neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for those results. The increased wealth generation was a necessary condition.
That scenario is only possible on paper, independent of what actually occurs within the real world, because stratifying a society, which is exactly what capitalism does, increases opportunities for injustices to occur.
It's not the same unfortunately. Government exists through the initiation of force. When you own a gun you are protecting yourself, not by initiating force, but self-defense. In the same way that the mafia initiates force against it's victims, it would be insane to tell them that through the initiation of extortion and violence they are protecting the rights of their victim.
That’s just it. How do you hold government to those standards when we can’t possibly be made aware of all their back room deals, contracts and associations.
Assumption: "all things being equal". At the very first statement, you are already mistaken. In capitalism, equality is in the bottom of the sea. In capitalism, it's who you know, not what you know. Talents are disregarded. They rubbish your talent into a money-generator.
Really? The ONLY way businesses succeed in profitability is through "best" products, quality, and efficiency? NEVER in history has a company of said qualities failed while a "lesser" company thrived? For sake of argument I'll even throw out that "best" is a HIGHLY subjective, loaded word.
@Fuctmentality Go look at the third comment you wrote to me genius. 1 Which question in particular have I not answered. 1. My point is that state and government are the same, therefore belief in government is belief in the state, there's your statism. If a business democrasizes itself outside of a state mandate it's still free market capitalism.
I would love to have had the cure for lung cancer in my lab at the moment this angry old crow was dying from her cigarette habit. Then we could have talked laissez-faire capitalism at her bedside. For all you Ayn lovers out there, she was drawing Social Security and was on Medicare when she passed.
"the most dangerous thing in this country today is the university, because they are teaching the kinds of things that could lead to the destruction of this country" Prophet.
@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY Here at LibertyPen, we revere individual liberty as a primary value, but we also believe in treating people as they would have others treated. Since you yearn for a central planner to dictate how you and your fellow man must behave, the COLLECTIVE at LibertyPen has decided to accommodate your philosophy and trump your individual liberty for what we believe is the greater good. Don't bother thanking us.
When I was a kid (40 years ago) reading Rand for homework assignments, I regret that I didn't have the appreciation I have for her today. I used to think she was simply an author with a unique and brilliant philosophy. Based on where our country is and where it's headed, it turns out that she would be more appropriately described as a prophet. Too bad we weren't listening.
She was right about the university's.
jeg elsker Norge, Er du en Objectivist?
Her grammatical error doesn't make her comment any more or less incorrect than yours, Nazi.
Did the internet become what it is today because of government 'force' or because of millions of individuals choosing to freely to use this, at the time, unregulated tool for their own personal benefit and potential commercial profits?
Cloud9 government gives google money
This book haunts me. Rand opened my eyes and made me realize the errors of my ways, and I'd like to turn around, but I get depressed over all those choices I made in the past.
She was pure genius.
KELLI2L2 In a free market society there are no monopolies as they only come about via government interference and favors.
You only want to hinder those who produce because you make and do nothing of value. Which is apparent by your insulting and useless TH-cam comment which is worth nothing to anyone and least of all yourself.
Look up Rothbard's critique of Ayn Rand
Imagine being celebrated for producing something of value versus those that take from you (politicians).
I love how Rand's powerful words can make the statist rats squeal! Nothing scares them more than the concept of liberty.
The thing is that not all people are poor because they don't work hard. Some people are just unlucky or have something tethering them to their situation like a family member that they need to take care of.
If there is only passion to live by, its individualism. Absolutely agreed
In a thriving economy unemployment is always low and temporary, there's always demand for labor, and skilled workers are precious. If a business goes bankrupt, is because it wasn't producing what the consumers expected, and thus the best possible outcome is exactly this one: bankruptcy. The people working there will find other jobs in successful businesses, of even with the experience they gained will create their own successful endeavor.
Her words have come true! She was a genius
"Firstly, government is not even "capable" of changing you into something you're not."
That is exactly my point! The government cannot take untalented people and make them productive members of society. People are born with different abilities and attributes. Those abilities and attributes are what create wealth. The government's job is not to "better society", it's to give society an arena in which to exist. To understand the conservative point of view, it helps to think of govt like the walls
I thank God for who ever produced this video, and posted it for generations, who couldnt hear such wisdom!!
I never did well in school and it affected where I now go to college. Up until I read Atlas Shrugged, her message really hit home...something no one has ever really done before. I'm upset now because I feel it's too late to improve my life and get a scholarship and go to an ivy league school and get a great job. I just want to know it's not too late.
Mr. Gigantic Oil Barron says, "$2.50 a gallon!"
I say, "Bargain!"
@StunnedByStupidity I am tickled when the truth affects certain individuals much like the devil is affected by holy water. It can be very discomforting. Rand was a powerhouse of truth and insight.
Nicely put together video. Thanks. Greatly enjoyed it. Ayn Rand rocks!
Correct, the concept of capitalism has never been practiced, but implied...well said Rand.
Haha, I'd LOVE to have $2.50 a gallon for gas!
can't believe this same rhetoric was spoken way back then.
I'd like to thank Liberty Pen for compiling and posting this fairly succinct presentation of Rand's viewpoints. Whether you are a leftist or a Randian or anything else, this clip allows viewers to see Rand defend her views in her own words. I will certainly be using this clip in my classroom and have my students analyze her arguments presented here. Thanks again, Liberty Pen.
Ayn had explained this so clearly that if all my liberal friends watch this, they would come away with a better understanding of what role a Government plays in economics and how the one we have is the problem. This was recorded during the Carter Administration but it applies perfectly for to today. The fact that the logic and reasoning is so sound and so ignored by Academia and the political class, baffles me.
The exact opposite of what Christ taught.
***** Well, you remember wrong.
But then again Jesus did not hand anyone a temporary fix, he offered everything to the people that had nothing. Jesus basically said that if you have fish, share fish with everybody...
Karl Emil Ekdahl He suggested sharing, he didn't put a gun to peoples heads and say "share or I'll fucking shoot you!".
so?
Good!
In your case, trusting politicians to make better judgments than you do may not be a bad idea. I will grant you that much.
What Ayn says about monopolies ONLY being created by governments is a fallacy, as is easily exposed by even a small amount of research into economics and social politics. Lassiez-faire capitalism has never succeeded compared to the mixed economy. The Golden Age, late 1940's to 1970's, was the time of at least partially controlled economies. All you need to do is listen to her talk; she injects artifical political polarization into it "Intellectuals disagree with me because they are leftist intellectuals" ... No, they disagree because you are wrong.
Rand explains very clearly here that a damaging monopoly can only exist when competition is prevented by legislation. Without that, any single supplier who starts to overcharge their customer will soon be bankrupt because competitors will start up in that newly profitable market.
If you say you only needed a small amount of research, can you name just one example of free market monopoly overcharging?
That's because there never has been a truly free market economy. Her view is simplistic. Damaging monopolies exist all the time and not just from legislation; production, like OPEC in 1973, Microsoft and Apple today, to name just a few. I guarantee a lot of the stuff in your house can be traces back to a few companies.
ewen clark
Her comments here are simplistic, because its a TV interview. There is more detail on monopoly in her book "Capitalism - Unknown Ideal" (but you have to remember if you read it, it was written almost half century ago). Also, a current economist worth reading is Thomas Sowell.
In your Microsoft example, yes they have most of the OS market, but they are not a monopoly because customers have alternatives (Apple and Linux). I use Windows, not because it is the best (it has faults), but because it is the most cost effective way to run my computers. Even the free one, linux, is too expensive because of the time and effort involved.
Free market monopolies always fit that pattern, the biggest suppliers only achieve that status by offering the best all round choice to the customer. And what percentage MS have of the market does not matter to me as a customer, once I've made that free choice.
Monopolies can only exisist from the result of the trait that almost Rand most promotes, the power of human ingenuity aimed at self interest, whether it be at the hands of legislators of industrialists, the capability of human ingenuity will always allow the stronger to abbuse the weaker ( in the case the establishment of economic monopolies) and that is why government intervention is infact a necessary component of any society that promotes efficient progress and personal utility.
But i give her a break, she from an older time. Its like listening to these Kennedy democrats these days.
She got a lot of free lunches in her life with this song and dance
Wow, never have i heard Capitalism explained so eloquently. I have only known bits of Ayn Rand off Ron Paul's "End the Fed".
Minimum wage hike
Look how shocked Donnahue is when Rand explains that commerce isn't force. He's never heard of such a thing.
Social security to poor by taxing rich
@meanmark1 Rand would argue it is not okay for government to interfere on the "behalf" (a term open to interpretation and often twisted by politicians) of the citizens. However, she would quickly acknowledge that it is proper for government to provide the civil court system where such matters can best be sorted out.
Check your premises. Deregulation did not lead to the collapse. It was caused by prolonged artificially low interest rates, combined by government incentives to coax individuals to borrow money they would not be able to repay. See Housing Boom & Bust by Thomas Sowell, Housing Crisis Culprits by Walter Williams, Economic Crisis Culprits by Columbia PhD Thomas Woods--TH-cam videos by LibertyPen. This house of cards was built by government. papered with money out of thin air. Your last ? is valid.
She's got it right about the "vote" for capitalism is based in mostly entrepreneurs coming forth to meet their own self-interested needs to serve the needs of others to the greater good. Now, there may be exceptions and corruption, but they are few and far between. Most who do so don't last. The best companies, those of merit that last, are honorable, or they end up going out of business.
With worker control as opposed to market control, there is inefficiency and usually shortages of particular goods as the enterprise is no longer there for the consumer, but for the employee. Most private enterprises have moved away from the 20th century hierarchical structure, to a more worker-friendly structure as both consumer and worker satisfaction is vital.
I am a capitalist because I believe in mutual benefit (big profits + consumer satisfaction).
Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand - A match made in heaven !!!
Ludwig? Sowell?
Those liar loans were the result of government action. Instruments like interest-only loans were created as a means to respond to government dictates for "affordable housing." Worse yet, Freddie and Fannie would buy the loans, providing financial institutions with no incentive for prudent lending practices. Liar loans are not products of deregulation, but rather the result of government intervention. Politicians should never be trusted over the free market (the consumer demands of you and I).
I dare to say that every single truly successful person in the world has lived by Ayn Rands philosophy to a great degree. Produce and you shall have.
Martin K. Schröder Mark Cuban
William F. Buckley on Ayn Rand: "Her scorn for charity,for altruism was such as to build up an unfeeling system"
This is who inspired Congressman Paul Ryan and his reason for getting into politics.
That's just it, capitalism helps the poor more than any other system. It helps the poor be independent, it gives the poor equal opportunity to become rich, and through innovation and wealth generation it raises the standards of livings for all. As a great man once said," a rising tide lifts all boats."
The thing about Itel is that they are at the cutting edge of producing processors. While it would be easy for many to produce last-generation processors, nobody can make things that other people (intel) have just developed/invented. And if you want the newest of the new, you have to accept the price that the developer wants. After all, nobody else can do it, right?
If not you could buy older, and less good stuff, for a much smaller price.
"Group of people performing labour together" is a just a means of production, and a creative mind decides the way it is to be deployed. Material wealth is the result of that creative mind, if the "group" is not there, he will find an alternative like mechanisation, that's what creativity is all about.
Often dismissed by today's intellectuals as a simpleton, Ayn Rand is a genius whose mental acumen stands head and shoulders above the vast majority of those who would judge her. To dismiss her views on capitalism as the driving force of a free society, is to doom our society to a life of government slavery! We should not fear capitalism...fear a government that appoints itself the guardian of the common good!
"Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on. It is not man." - Matin Luther King, Jr.
Private property exists strictly for utilitarian purposes. It is, in the words of David Hume, "An artifice of contract." If private property is no longer usefull, it should therefore be discarded.
If a man labours on someone else's property for 20 years to accumulate his own resources, and then trades them to other men for their labour to build a factory, and gives that factory to his son before he dies, and then THAT man gives the factory to his son before HE dies, then that grandson of the first man owns the factory, even if it is the only factory for a thousand miles. The man who has no BETTER means to live than working in his factory is NOT his slave.
When a worker quits, he doesn't fire his employer, he stops working. Big difference. If all the workers have a vote and decide to kick out their boss, THEN they fire their employer. This is the only way to gaurantee that people keep the fruits of their labour instead of having it forceably taken away from them by their bosses. Unions play a central role in free societies.
I'm a socialist who merely believes in worker ownership. Here's a hypothetical: No state intervention, no outside entity using any kind of force or monetary coercion on the internal affairs regarding any collective. No hierarchical control within any collective. There is no pretext provided by any government to require the enforcement of equality within any collective. People one day just decided, to abolish hierarchy. History shows it's doable.
If you are a capitalist, please argue against me.
To answer your question, ask this question: what was the result of all the past bad loans? All the big players got bailed out and despite O's rhetoric about cutting salaries, his best friends (like Corzine) are Wall St bankers. Moral hazard is being applied like never before - there is no incentive for good behavior.
I'm not saying failures will never occur in pure capitalism but the point is we are so far removed from that I don't see how free markets can be blamed for anything anymore
It is YOU that are not listening to her words. Listen carefully at 8:35. Rand advocates capitalism, not anarchy.
It does not mean they deserve to die. It just means it is not government's responsibility to take care of them - it is the people's responsibility; your responsibility, my responsibility. When you see a poor person, help them out and donate to charities that help them. But don't ask someone else (the government) to point a gun at another person, and forcefully take take their money in order to help the poor person - take some responsibility yourself.
According to Adam Smith, the division of labor destroys personal creativity. He said states should intervene to prevent this.
If I must rent myself out as a wage slave or else I die, in what sense of the word am I "Free?"
Agreed, the PO is a disappearing business. It was only to illustrate that monopolies can only be formed by state regulations. It was a better example than the oil corps used by the interviewer in this video, which is not a monopoly (however high gas prices get)
It is only to the living individual that the concept of value exists. What promotes and enhances one's life is 'the good. What degrades and threatens one's life is 'the evil'. Life is the objective standard of value. Not any imaginary deity in the sky, nor a collective mob. There's no collective mind. Only individual one's.
I agree with her about capitalism, but what Ayn did not understand was how heavily the oil companies were and still are subsidized by government
A point not made on the Donahue Show was the revelation that WE DO NOT NEED OIL... it is a convenience, it is in place, it is supported, and the government has enacted rules, regulations and special considerations to support the myth, that we are utterly dependent on oil. The advances in alternate fuel systems have been made sporadically during times when government programs came and went and supported small business operations through DOE, DARPA, and other agencies, as well as tax breaks, etc.
@026SH In theory, yes. The theory of capitalism is that a smaller more efficient firm will topple a bigger less efficient one. However, this is not always true. Wal Mart was competitors, yet the business continues to grow and stifles smaller businesses from growing because they offer such low prices. Wal Mart has also bought out competitors, much like Microsoft did, to insure they will not be taken down.
(2) The first roads were, in fact, turnpikes built by businesses. The quality of these roads would vary and toll fees and privileged use of these roads was also left up to the businesses which was a real impediment to free trade. That's why gov't started to make public access roads with regulated quality of said roads. All of the largest cases of fraud and waste can be directly connected to crony capitalism and lobbyists. Corporate influence in gov't is the real issue.
@thisguy803
she did not say education was dangerous, in fact she teaches the opposite.
She said that professors only teach liberal philosophy- the university exist to teach many conflicting ways of thought, not homogenize student thought based upon self interest.
Even Obama recognizes that it was improper government intervention into the house market (through forced sub-primes loans) that got us into our current mess.
I am Asian. In my country, they make Levi's jeans and microprocessors are also produced. People are paid at an abysmal $0.50 an hr to produce these things, and some other things that are exported.
These products go to the West and they merely put labels on them. When they come back to my country, they are worth the same as in your country.
Why dont you pay us with the same money as you are paid, so I can buy the same product as I am paid? Exploitation? With capitalists, the answer is no.
I always love hearing Eastern Europeans say "capitalism."
Government run Healthcare also has its drawbacks. In Canada the average wait time for specialists and special tests are around 90 days where as in the U.S. the wait time is half that or much less. The standard of care is often better in the U.S. than in other places.
@calm161 A great man once said, "The truth shall set you free but first, it's going to piss you off". Believe me, I know the feeling.
Practically NOBODY in this country can quit their job anytime they want to. Most of us grown-ups who live in the real world have families, rent/mortgage payments, and lives which we cannot simply abandon.
It's scary how correct she was 50 years ago. The time has obviously come and we need to stop fucking around if we are to make it out alive.
Only Government uses force. In a free society everybody accumulates property as a result of their own labor, creativity and intellect.
Before Legistlation was even passed against Standard Oil its market share fell to around 30% (number may even be lower, as this is off the cuff). Monopolies are impossible w/o govt. involvement setting the un-naturual barriers of entry or difficulties
We have public schools in the United States and Hospitals here arent allowed to turn people away because they cant pay. However I am not saying the Health Care system here is the best. In fact the reason why Healthcare and Insurance is so expensive here is because there isnt any competition between drug makers, medical suppliers, and insurance providers. Lobbyists have government friends allow such practices.
Free Market provides all the balance needed. When a business grows too much, it becomes inefficient and is forced to scale down or go out of business. You don't seem to realize that the stronger supporters of government intervention are the big businesses, because they can only keep themselves growing with the help of government protecting them from competition.
The fallacy of standard oil and monopoly from laissez faire is really annoying to listen to. People always try to tell you that there's a happy middle ground between free market and centralisation but will never tell you at who's expense it should be at or where the line should be drawn.
The interviewer was wrong indeed on the monopoly. If a gigantic oil company wants to chargeyou $2.5 a gallon, smaller oil companies will be able to grow, because if they charge only $1.75, they will get all the customers the gigantic oil company once had. Therefore, the small company will be able to grow, and the gigantic one will be out of business within a year or so. This is only possible if the government allows people to start their own business, and allows them to compete with the others
I'm not referring to Ayn Rand I was taking issue with your comment about Capitalism being a moral system.
It's true that there will be poverty under capitalism. It's also true that throughout history, the more a system as leaned towards free-markets, the richer all the population got. In the 19th century in the US, ppl stopped being substantial farmers, living very poorly and became factory workers who were able to profit from electricity, new farming techniques, gas,... Fastest growth in human history was recorded in the US at the end of the 19th century.
No, the reason healthcare is expensive is that it is profit-driven. Every single other nation in the industrialized world has public healthcare, and every single nation has a lower healthcare cost per-capita.
Capitalists are the ones who are paying the lobbyists. Don't forget that.
Yeah, but the organized force wasn't meant to be used on it's citizens, except three ways she points out; foreign aggressores (military), unlawful citizens (police), and civil disputes (court).
She's pointing out that income redistribution is just using that force for the wrong purpose.
They are made more free when they can earn 75 cents a day in a sweatshop year round, then work at a garbage dump or farm for about 50 cents a day only when the weather is fair.
I'm a moderate. I don't know why you think I'm saying we should get rid of money. I'm saying that the dispersion of money should be more democratic. I'm not a libertarian, and I think sometimes people need to be forced to obey rules (ie: Traffic Laws) and we need a certain amount of economic competition, but people don't need to die just because they are poor. Hospitals should be for everyone.
@Fuctmentality 3.5 Evidence? Socialism: The USSR, China before adopting capitalism, Cuba, North Korea, India, Capitalism: The US, China after adopting capitalism, South Korea, Japan, . . . that's all I can think of off the top of my head.4. You're finally wrong, America existed like that up until the early twentieth century. This government functioned from 1776 to 1913 without a single American paying income tax.People welcomed immigration because it wasn't a drain on health care . . .
"The power you hold as an industrialist is the power to produce value"
And lot's of political influence.
In a free market, economic power will eventually lead to political power. This influence in politics of big economic powers will break down the free market in order to protect personal interests.
In order to protect a free market, the concentration of economic power should be actively prevented.
It is probably true that economic power will lead to political power. My solution to that would then be to limit the size of government as much as possible to limit the harm they can do. The smaller you keep the government, the less significant the political power will be. Maybe my argument is too simplistic? I'm not sure. I'm open to suggestions.
@BelieversinThings
1. Answer the questions I am not asking about supply & demand
2. Statist does not mean arhcist, belief in government doesn't mean statist. & What system do you prefer to democracy? & No in socialism the state doesn't control everything. You're thinking fascism or possible state capitalism.
"There has to be sufficiently increased individual productivity to generate enough wealth to provide it" This is true. "Unions didn't make that happen" This is false. Do you know what a labor union is? It is a group of people performing labor together. All material wealth is created through labor.
In capitalism the decision making process is totalitarian, with unions it is democratic. This is the difference.
Ayn Rand's belief that an individual's level of power and wealth has negligible effect on their ability to accumulate even more power and wealth, at least when compared to their innately superior suchness, is bested only by her belief that in spite of the obvious ridiculousness of the previous belief, all of us as rational beings should take her word for it that she has unlimited access to objective reality directly through her senses, and is thus right about everything.
She's talking about an intellectual philosophy and a populace that bases policy and action on peaceful cooperation among individuals, and among governments. Goodwill, peace, and trade rather than hate, bullying, force, and violence which are the standards of government actions today, allowed by the voters and passive populace.
Government is only organized force. All of its policies and revenues come from a gun to be used against anyone who doesn't willingly comply, no matter with oppression.
@calm161 One of my heroes is Marine General Smedley Butler who was the highest decorated American serviceman since Washington. He served 34 years, fought in FIVE wars and was awarded the Marine Brevet Medal and TWO Congressional Medals of Honor and after he retired he wrote the book "War is a Racket" where he accused WALL STREET of being behind most US wars. The US has invaded Mexico several times, Cuba a couple of times and several ofther S. Am countries for...PROFIT.
People who think they have learned history through movies or economics through video games should not comment on serious videos. Sadly, to understand and fully appreciate Rand's philosophic insights requires more than the surface scratching such pop scholars are willing to invest. For the serious truth seeker, her book, The Virtue Of Selfishness, is the best place to start.
This is an incredibly "collectivist" idea of the market, Kenfo0.
The "market," while it IS a group of individuals is actually driven by INDIVIDUAL wants, rather than "collective" wants. Not "what's best for the market."
You have illustrated an excellent fallacy.
Thank you.
@calm161 Mr. Lay served in the US Navy near the end of the war in Vietnam under Nixon. He was an analyst and economic researcher and wrote a report for Nixon which strongly encouraged the CONTINUATION of the war in Vietnam for the sake of the US economy. He was a strong proponent of DEregulation and a huge fan of Ayn Rand. However, please do not assume that is the only reason that I distain Rand. It is the core of her ideas that attract and inspire men like Lay to do great evil.
Ayn Rand was correct on many topics.
It's possible to see that by what is happening to Comcast and other cable monopolies.
Persons such as myself are boycotting Comcast because of their outrageous prices and the lack of program choices.
Sure, you have to make some changes [no tv], but we humans are creative and resourceful.
This opens the door for competition [internet & satellite].
Trade is not human nature itself, rather it is a PART of it. One of it's aspects in other words.
Alongside trade, human nature is composed of emotions and mental diversity (not just in talent but also in thought, desires, etc), amongst other traits. Thus great wealth and prosperity are not subjected solely to one's ability to trade, but also cunningness and intelligence. A system with a government is a system with an entity that should interfere if social inequality grows outside of proportion.
@bdhcarbon, As far as healthcare goes, why is it that the market is not open to more companies to provide healthcare. The companies who offered the most beneficial services and policies at an affordable rate of the consumer. Healthcare costs are out of control not because of greedy practices by money hungry CEO's, but because on many occasions those who have health insurance over do it because in a sense it is free (included in the plan). This drives costs up for the companies and they are
Any Rand, an intellectual giant. Although she probably would not agree, thank God for her and her teachings.
The improvement of working conditions doesn't just come resources out of thin air. There has to be sufficiently increased individual productivity to generate enough wealth to provide it. Unions didn't make that happen, capitalism did. Unions arguably increased bargaining power to ensure the direction of that increased productivity, but they were neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for those results. The increased wealth generation was a necessary condition.
That scenario is only possible on paper, independent of what actually occurs within the real world, because stratifying a society, which is exactly what capitalism does, increases opportunities for injustices to occur.
It's not the same unfortunately. Government exists through the initiation of force. When you own a gun you are protecting yourself, not by initiating force, but self-defense. In the same way that the mafia initiates force against it's victims, it would be insane to tell them that through the initiation of extortion and violence they are protecting the rights of their victim.
On the issue of oil, Time has proven that Donahue was right and Rand was wrong.
The US lost its oil monopolies to Opec.
Capitalism does not require defense, only application.
That’s just it. How do you hold government to those standards when we can’t possibly be made aware of all their back room deals, contracts and associations.
Assumption: "all things being equal". At the very first statement, you are already mistaken. In capitalism, equality is in the bottom of the sea.
In capitalism, it's who you know, not what you know. Talents are disregarded. They rubbish your talent into a money-generator.
Really? The ONLY way businesses succeed in profitability is through "best" products, quality, and efficiency? NEVER in history has a company of said qualities failed while a "lesser" company thrived? For sake of argument I'll even throw out that "best" is a HIGHLY subjective, loaded word.
@Fuctmentality Go look at the third comment you wrote to me genius. 1 Which question in particular have I not answered. 1. My point is that state and government are the same, therefore belief in government is belief in the state, there's your statism. If a business democrasizes itself outside of a state mandate it's still free market capitalism.
I would love to have had the cure for lung cancer in my lab at the moment this angry old crow was dying from her cigarette habit. Then we could have talked laissez-faire capitalism at her bedside. For all you Ayn lovers out there, she was drawing Social Security and was on Medicare when she passed.