Paradise Lost **potential mini spoiler if you intend to read Atlas Shrugged**

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Hmmmm. The plot of AS puts me in mind of the Golgafrinchans from HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy.



Except of course in the Objectivist version, only the A ship would be built and the Captains of Industry would head off into the cosmos freed at last from the subhumans, the bureaucrats, the regulators, losers and parasites.

No, no, no! You really need to read the book!

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

That is so very spectacularly wrong.

There is nothing aproaching laissez faire, nor even capitalism for that matter in this country.
And the banking crisis was initiated by the state's interference, whereby banks were practically forced to lend those unworthy of credit - and was sponsored by the state's belief in 'too big to fail'.

Precisely

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Does this include scepticism towards IR35? I would imagine so, as it's a byproduct of the current tax system's arbitrariness, amongst other things and represents an antiquated approach to an evolving labour market.

Yes, I agree - the taxation system is antiquated. Unfortunately the income from taxation doesn't cover Government's expenditure so changes to legislation will become more extreme to try and compensate

[ZARDOZ]

Precisely

Precisely wrong

Looking Back at the Repeal of Glass-Steagall, or, How the Banks Caught Casino Fever | Roosevelt Institute

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Precisely wrong

Looking Back at the Repeal of Glass-Steagall, or, How the Banks Caught Casino Fever | Roosevelt Institute

What does that prove I don't pretend to be an expert by any means but Governments in the UK and the States both encouraged their inhabitants to buy property as an investment which stimulated the housing market, creating jobs etc etc. It was in the Governments' interests at the time for the banks to offer 100% or even 100%+ mortgages and that's what happened - credit was offered to people who really couldn't afford it if there was any movement at all in interest rates. Interest rates changed and then all of a sudden there was vast amounts of toxic debt which couldn't be covered

[SpontaneousOrder]

What does that prove I don't pretend to be an expert by any means but Governments in the UK and the States both encouraged their inhabitants to buy property as an investment which stimulated the housing market, creating jobs etc etc. It was in the Governments' interests at the time for the banks to offer 100% or even 100%+ mortgages and that's what happened - credit was offered to people who really couldn't afford it if there was any movement at all in interest rates. Interest rates changed and then all of a sudden there was vast amounts of toxic debt which couldn't be covered

Not to mention that socialising the losses blows any pretence of capitalism out of the water right off the bat.

[Robinho]

The US had negative real interest rates for years in the buildup to the housing bubble (set by the federal reserve). When you have negative interest rates, asset (house) prices rise, and when asset prices suddenly rise, people buy the assets purely for the price appreciation and not for consumption (living in)/dividends (rental income). Throw in laws/institutions to encourage poor people to buy houses and it's pretty easy to see how it happened.

[pjclarke]

Looking after your children is not altruism.

How is it not? Here's the dictionary definition:

the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism ).

Wiki adds

Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect

While Rand, typically, goes nuclear and redefines the word almost into its antonym:

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Wow. I must cancel my contribution to Save the Children immediately, before I set fire to myself.

In a purely material sense most parents invest far more time and money in parenting than they could ever hope to recoup (£225K per child) later. I guess there are indrect benefits in terms of approval, gratitude, satisfaction, but surely these would apply equally to altruism relating to non-children, giving to charity, voluntary work etc?

I think anyone who followed the tenet 'live for yourself, not others' would probably not make a very good parent.

The fact that you answered no to my point proves that the ideology is sound - where you draw the line is up to your own conscience. Everyone who works pays tax that's accepted but would you give 90% of your earnings to ensure that someone else had a happier life - don't just kneejerk say yes because it sounds like something you should do - really think about it

I am not sure that agreeing with an extreme example proves anything; all I agreed with is that nepotism is wrong, if the point of the ideology is that 'a handup is better than a handout', then we have no disagreement, but I think Rand was arguing rather more than that. ....for example you say that everyone accepts taxation - Rand argued that income tax should be voluntary.

[SpontaneousOrder]

How is it not? Here's the dictionary definition:


Wiki adds



While Rand, typically, goes nuclear and redefines the word almost into its antonym:



Wow. I must cancel my contribution to Save the Children immediately, before I set fire to myself.

In a purely material sense most parents invest far more time and money in parenting than they could ever hope to recoup (£225K per child) later. I guess there are indrect benefits in terms of approval, gratitude, satisfaction, but surely these would apply equally to altruism relating to non-children, giving to charity, voluntary work etc?

I think anyone who followed the tenet 'live for yourself, not others' would probably not make a very good parent.



I am not sure that agreeing with an extreme example proves anything; all I agreed with is that nepotism is wrong, if the point of the ideology is that 'a handup is better than a handout', then we have no disagreement, but I think Rand was arguing rather more than that. ....for example you say that everyone accepts taxation - Rand argued that income tax should be voluntary.

You are aware, arent you? that Rand had no issue with charity.

[SpontaneousOrder]

The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

“The Question of Scholarships,”
The Objectivist, June 1966,