Dear Ayn Rand

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
jpitre's picture
jpitre
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 3 2009
Posts: 366
Dear Ayn Rand

 I posted often in the past about my distain for Ayn Rand and her theories - for that matter those who follow her lead, especially those in positions of power that enable policies to be adopted by our government.

 

The following link is to an article that seems to sum up much of her flawed selfish ideals

readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/10656-focus-the-horrors-of-an-ayn-rand-world

Bottom line is that once one moves past the initial thought of personal freedom and begins to confrom the reality of such a system, it becomes clear that she is completely wrongheaded in her logic. I think it is unfortunate that many Americans have jumped on to her bandwagon and have, in part, led us into the polarized position we find ourselves where it is well nigh impossible to get much of anything intelligent accomplished because of ideological extremes that cannot or will not find a meeting of the minds

Jim 

 

tictac1's picture
tictac1
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 25 2009
Posts: 175
"No government except the

"No government except the police, courts of law, and the armed services.

No regulation of anything by any government.

No Medicare or Medicaid.

No Social Security.

No public schools.

No public hospitals.

No public anything, in fact. Just individuals, each looking out for himself, not asking for help or giving help to anyone."

The last sentence is purely the author's conjecture.  In fact, the other conditions existed for some time in early America, and despite this, people were NOT overwhelmingly selfish.  Quite the opposite.  I would suggest that when socialism prevails, people become less charitable.  After all, we have programs for those things, don't we?

Now here's my point:  the author says this would be a horrible, Darwinian world.

Why should it be anything else?  After all, if survival of the fittest led to the ever-increasing intelligence and ability of mankind, why would we, as a society, want to begin to undo this progress?

The fact of the matter is that less capable individuals, regardless of species, are a drag on the rest.  Why should these individuals not only be allowed to reproduce, but actually be given assistance in doing so?

I'm not saying I agree with this line of thinking, but it is the elephant in the room if you want to talk about the long-term effects of socialism.  The movie "Idiocracy" comes to mind.

This is where the argument for statism breaks down.  To do "good", the state must resort to violence, all the while expecting to have a complete monopoly over said violence.  The problem is, it doesn't work.

Let me give you an example from CA on at least one area where government is superfluous:  medical marijuana.  There is a HUGE economy, flourishing, DESPITE the complete lack of any regulation.  Any qualified patient has easy access to the highest quality cannabis in the WORLD, tested to be free of all pesticides, fungus, molds, and verified for potency.  Why?  Competition.  Dispensaries compete with each other for patients, growers compete with each other to get top-dollar for their produce, and patients have access to clean flowers, in more varieties, strains, and modes of consumption than was ever available on the black market.  In fact, right now ground-breaking research is being done, not with government grants, but by individual doctors interested in the un-tapped possibilities of this plant.  Check out  "project CBD".  All the government had to do was get out of the way.

The calls for regulation of MM aren't coming from patients, they are coming largely from people that see dollar signs, and want a cut, or think that somehow regulation will get the Federal government off their back (it won't).

The author of the article conveniently fails to discuss major projects that were NOT built by government.  How about the whole railroad system of Great Britain?  Or the Great Northern railroad?

Then there's the nonsense about non-profits disappearing, and health care.  Anyone with google is capable of learning the history of charitable organizations before the advent of US socialism, if they choose.  These organizations were not perfect, but neither is any other system which involves humans.

The author decries the oligarchy that Ayn Rand's world would surely be, but what the HELL do we have now?!?  How many millionaires do we have writting our laws for us?  More government and regulation won't change the fact that rich people are also powerful.  Sorry, welcome to earth!

While I believe Ayn Rand to be largely capitalist propaganda, this is nothing but socialist propaganda, and only effective on those properly indoctrinated to ignore even the recent history of this country.

tricky rick's picture
tricky rick
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 9 2011
Posts: 92
tictac1 rand

after several readings at different times in my life I've always come to the same daydream:  Remember being picked or a sport team?  In Rand's world  Who would pick?  Who wouldn't be picked?     Who is to make sure the military remains on task?

That's what was always missing for me...  WHO is the WHO in the WHAT WHEN WHERE and WHY  (sounds like an Abbot and Costello skit!) 

Brainless's picture
Brainless
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 9 2008
Posts: 150
Why do difficult

 For USA it is easy.

Follow the constitution.

Amend it if necessary.

Prosecute offenders.

nothing else to it.

 

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Very shallow arguments...

I have said before I am not a big fan of Rand.  She might get a few things right but she gets quite a bit wrong and she is personally such a flawed person it makes it hard to take her philosophy totally serious.  However this article is nothing but a series of shallow arguments.

If the authors points were true, why do families in societies without social safety nets, remain close and often have multi-generational cohabitation?  Why is it that before there was this system of transfer payments, there was a far greater sense of community and people were far more willing to help each other out.  Could it be because now that job has been outsourced to the government and payments are extracted using force?  Is it really that surprising that this leaves people feeling these issues are no longer their problem because they have already done their part by paying taxes and now it is the governments responsibility to take care of those in need.

Does the author even consider the possibility that regulation often gives far more illusion of security than actual security?  Is it possible that if people realized that these regulated industries are still very dangerous, they would be far more careful with their actions and investments?   To worry about Wall St becoming "Let the buyer beware" seems almost quaint in our world of bailouts, MF global looting, flash crashes, 0% prosecution of financial fraud.  At this point the rule of law is just a fairy tail to tell school kids about because it is clear that laws will be changed ex post facto, if is convenient for TPTB.

This all reminds me of the Frédéric Bastiat essay called "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen".

In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.

jpitre's picture
jpitre
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 3 2009
Posts: 366
Ayn Rand vs Socialism

 While I do not agree with Rand, it does not mean that socialism in the extreme is right either. It seems that much of what is said in terms of fairness and fairplay gets lumped into a deadly plot that will sink us all in a sea of socialist mud.

Our founding fathers, including George Washington were careful to state that we will  survive as a free Republic "only as long as there shall remain any (public) virtue in the body of the people" (Washington quote from the Washington Papers, Harper Row, 1955) Scholars generally  accept that "public virtue" can be defined as a principle similar to the Golden Rule, where each man is persuaded to submerge his personal wants into the good of the whole. The willingness of the individual to sacrifice his private  interests for the good of the community - patriotism, love of country and well being of his neighbor - defines public virtue. The 18th century minds of our founders were imbued with the idea that a popular based government cannot be supported without such virtue. A concept that is quite the reverse of Randian thought and in direct opposition of Walll Street and the Corporatocracy that has taken control of our country in the name of a bastardized form of Capitalism.

I ask, where is our public virtue in our world today - the only answer I hear is a faint whisper now and then seldom heard over the din of the selfish "me" ranting

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
So the point of this thread

So the point of this thread is just to bash Ayn Rand and her work? How productive.

I will just state I own and have read every Rand book, so at least I can say I know what I am talking about. First off, Rand's books (most importantly the novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead), were written for the exact purpose of juxtaposing one of the most extreme forms of government that could arise from the social engineering that started in the 1940's and 1950's, against her idealized version of a group of people who held her beliefs, and who were a very small minority in such a society. Rand grew up in and was a refugee from communist USSR, so I have no doubt her versions of what happens in societies where government' runs howwild nuts are based on a good amount of personal experience.

I can personally sympathize with much of Rand's work because I see the destruction of wealth caused by government almost every single day. The following are just a few examples. For purposes of context, I work in the operations side of a private school in Central America that’s well established and has a strong reputation. Yet this is the run-of-the-mill stuff we have to deal with:

·         Yesterday, I received a notice from the Enviro-Nazis where I live, refusing us permission to build a retaining wall to protect our school from a river that outgrew its banks in a 100-year storm and caused some serious damage. The only problem is, the storm occured 18 months ago. It took us 12 months to get the permits to build the wall. We had to hire a consultant just to navigate the maze of Bullsweet to get the permits, whose cost alone raised the cost of the whole project by 15%. Then while we built the wall, the project was closed twice during construction by the Municipality for no reason. It was finally built, with all the permits, but we are still getting notices (in this case to not proceed - er, it's already done, idiots), which we have to spend lawyers, time and money on, answering. In the meantime, one of our stakeholders has been charged criminally for invading the river, again by Enviro-Nazis who sit at a desk somewhere and just issue pieces of paper and have not even been out to our site to even understand what they are trying to pine about.. Nevermind the President of the country issued an emergency decree after the storm declaring all normal permitting processes for repair work to be temporarilly lifted.

·         Two days ago, we received a notice from the National Institute of Infancy, informing us that we must obey the Order # such and such from the Ministry of Health and give the Mnistry of Infancy alist of all our students and which ones don't have vaccinations. If we don't I could go to jail. That is almost literally what the notice says. Nevermind there is no such l;a that requires anyone to be vaccinated in the country where I live, or for private schools to have to obey any of this nonsense. So de we take it to court and waste thosuands of dollars, or do we comply with the latest

 government MORON who has decided to knock on our door to see what bribes he can extract?

·         Last year, we were informed we ahd to submit an emergency evacuation plan for our cafeteria in order to re-obtain our food operating permit. What are the specifications, minimum requirements, and format for an emergency plan? Nobody could tell us, but they only would accept one from o ne predetermined authorized, official, emergency plan guy, and it costs $1,500. What he wound up submitting I could have created on a simple word processing program in my spare time. I am 100% sure someone at the Municpality shared his fee.

·         We are audited constantly by the tax authorities. They ALWAYS find something - it is impossible for them not to. The laws are too poorly written for there to be clarity so if you are complying with one, you are breaking another. I am positive they are written like this on purpose.

·         Two weeks ago, the Ministry of Education informed us that we would HAVE to send one or two of our physical education staff to some or othe conference they are having, and thjat we will be expected to participate in the future. Nevermind that the Minsitry has absolutely ZERO power over private schools. The law gives them the right to ask for our list of teachers and for the square footage area of our labs. Why that is I don't know, but we are bombarded by requests completely outside their authority ALL the time. That Ministry, like all the others here, is packed with aparatchiks who know only one thing: meddle meddle meddle, destroy the private sector, try to get bribes, at the very least harrass as much of the private sector as possible.

This list could go on for page after page, and I could easily add a story to it at least every other week. I dedicate at least 50% of my time not  towards improving the school, but fighting aparatchiks in government who do nothing to add value to our society (and whose salaries we pay for!).

Our infrastructure is a disaster. Crime is rampant. Corruption is beyond anything I could ever possibly describe to anyone that hasn’t lived in a Banana Republic. Public services are a joke. Yet taxes are incredibly high, making all things incredibly expensive, and nobody knows where the money goes. Well I know - it goes to line the pockets of a parasitic class of leaches, which call themselves the government who live in exchange for the power they hold over the private sector, and not for anything productive or remotely beneficial.

Yet, this is all “democratic”. Yes, we voted for this, somehow or another. And this is what is ultimately defended when people call for “Public Virtue” because this is what ultimately arises. Every social program that was ever started here started out as “Public Virtue” and of course the politicians still sell it and defend it as that.

The problem is that, while there very well are people who could be publically virtuous, and there have been a few in history that humanity has been blessed to have had serve, once you create the platform for the publically virtuous to have power, it almost instantly is invaded my mouchers, fraudsters, and parasites who are not there to serve, but to be served. Such a class of people now rule the country where I live, and the US is on the very fast track to catching up with us. 

 

land2341's picture
land2341
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2009
Posts: 402
Sanity lies in the tension

 Libertarians and communists and anarchists and socialists....  For one thing the extremes of BOTH sides are just s deeply flawed in their conviction that people will behave rationally.  Libertarians and anarchists are convinced some how that if you simply leave people alone and give them freedom FROM government interference that they will all trot off happily to be self sufficient.

Truth is we are all dependant and we all are stuck wth one another.  You get freedom from government,  but what does your neighbor get to help them be free of you?

 

Socialists and communists suffer from the delusion that if only a strong government can protect the people from their own mistakes and protect the common good ie avoid the tragedy of the commons and protect the few from the many.

Truth is a strong government will often strangle the people.  You get freedom from people destroying public good and from running roughshod over you,  but you lose individual freedom to do what you want.

 

What our founding fathers were working on,  and did not suceed at acheiving by the way, was a balance of freedom FROM and freedom TO.

Societies are all about instability.  Like any other organic thing societies are not static,  nomatter how erfect you think it is it will slide too far in one direction and then need to be pulled back.

Problem?  Right now we have extreme government control of some things and a total lack of government control over other things.  In essence both the libertarians and the socialists have lost and what we are left with it the worst of BOTH systems.

I suggest we try a new "ism".

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
A mix of all systems
land2341 wrote:

Libertarians and anarchists are convinced some how that if you simply leave people alone and give them freedom FROM government interference that they will all trot off happily to be self sufficient.

Truth is we are all dependant and we all are stuck wth one another.  You get freedom from government,  but what does your neighbor get to help them be free of you?

Libertarians/Anarchists are NOT CONVINCED that some how that if you simply leave people alone and give them freedom FROM government interference that they will all trot off happily to be self sufficient.  That is a complete strawman.  What they are convinced of is that power corrupts and therefore vesting absolute power with a single entity called government ( as opposed to dispersing that power across many entities ) is a mistake that will lead to massive amounts of misery and corruption.

It is true that we are all dependent on each other, but the real question is does that fact need to be legislated and forced upon us from above or could we find a more equitable solution if we were mostly left alone to work it out amongst ourselves?

land2341 wrote:

Right now we have extreme government control of some things and a total lack of government control over other things.  In essence both the libertarians and the socialists have lost and what we are left with it the worst of BOTH systems.

I could not agree more.  What we have now is the worst parts of all these systems mixed together with a mass of humanity that is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.  Not a pretty sight.

jpitre's picture
jpitre
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 3 2009
Posts: 366
A mix of systems

 WOW ! - I think that Land & Goes managed to encapsulate much of the background of the problems of our day in a few short sentences. I sometimes marvel at the insight forthcoming from  the contributors on this site. I agree that much of what we see now is the worst of both the libertarian and the socialist views

Farmer B. - I had no intention os "bashing" Rand as such, but rather used her well defined thoughts to illustrate an extreme point of view that I happen to disagree with and believe that such views have led us badly in a wrong direction. I empathize with you at the frustration you are encountering when confronted by the heavy hand of bureaucracy. I often share your anger when confronted with such obstacles - however I don't see these problems as necessarily stemming from "public virtue", but rather from lack of wisdom & morality. While Randian principles might change who is meting out the restrictions and possibly the nature of them, it is just as likely that restrictions of some type will be imposed by the ones wielding authority. The latin countries that I have been involved with are rife with corruption in one form or another, and no matter what system or law is imposed on such citizens, this underlying lack of morality & virtue will guarantee bad outcomes until the citizenry at large change their thinking. My concern here is that in America, I see our collective morality & virtue as envisioned by our founding fathers slipping away into a grab what you can and as my Father would say, the devil-take-the-hindmost - a sort of I've got mine and I don't care about you - and further, I don't care about our Country and its future

In my experience, the "Bananna Republic" problems stem mostly from the original colonial aristocracy and the evolving power that still owns and controls most of them even now - so to a great extent many were at least partially founded on Randian principles. Certainly most of their rulers for several centuries have been sadly lacking in any form of public virtue and have practiced selfishness in the extreme without regard for anyone or anything except their own aggrandizement.

Jim

land2341's picture
land2341
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2009
Posts: 402
Not a single entity called government

 OK I'll bite if it is not a single entity called govenrment,  then it must be some variation called governance.

The singular issue of our age is that small state level government cannot fight against the threats that really iminge upon the freedoms of the residents there in.  

I argued with a libertarian that somalia actually was a good example of a total free market ecoomy and they explained that I was incorrect because Somalia was being interefered with by outside nations.  I agreed wholeheartedly.  Any group of people, or group of peoples, who are not seen by outsiders as able to defend themselves will become prey.  Most libertarians believe that the government should exist in part to be able to defend themselves against outside nations.  But, they fail to see that international corporations are FAR more dangerous and powerful than any nation state.  They are usually not outside at all; and divide and conquer works very well for them.

 

Additonally, a lack of governance leads to singular preying.  I live on a decent chunk of land.  Recently,  a neighbor let their septic system get fouled and it started to overflow - right into my land.  What would my options have been if there had not been regulatory bodies to make them clean up their septic if they had refused to do so?

A business upstream of us just recently expanded and began draining huge amounts of water from the water table we all share.  Should they be permitted to do so?  The local government is restricting their draw and they are trying to use the state govenrment to fight it.  

Balance comes in the tension.  Sanity is found in the tug of war between your rights and mine,  not by granting too much power to either.

concernedcitizenx5's picture
concernedcitizenx5
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 15 2011
Posts: 26
There are a few problems that I see.

First, our constitution was written and mandated by MEN of wealth and power. Poor white males, women, blacks and slaves were not part of We the People. And so, wanting to protect THEIR means of wealth by which they got their power, they constructed a document that maintains access to cheap, poorly educated labor. All the while protecting their status.

These men would fit in well with Rand. Greed to them was a virtue. They did not work for their land. Soldiers, most of which were poor, fought and died stealing that land from Native Americans. So what did the framers work for? Protestant work ethic come to mind?

Second, any allegience should be to all fellow humans. Can't do that with Rand's mindset. I think this has been said here before but this is worth repeating. If we do not stop treating possessions/money better than we do each other. We are doomed. Can't do that either with Rand's mindset.

Anyone ever question where the gold comes from that these companies peddle for padding people's retirement? I am sure if you go to Africa and ask some of the soldiers. They can tell you. This is survival of the fittest? It is nothing more than fighting/killing for dirt and shiny metal that someone put a value to long ago.

Anything, including Rand's work, that makes it into the mess of information available to us is nothing more than manipulation of our thought processes. There are enough people who will buy into it to keep the system just the way it is. Few rich people up top. Wide range of people in the middle, trying to get to the top. And lots of people on the bottom.

magnacarta's picture
magnacarta
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 29 2012
Posts: 7
Problems I see

What is your point?

magnacarta's picture
magnacarta
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 29 2012
Posts: 7
Rand

Rand was an objectivist. most who are posting here are subjectivists. These two philosophical foundations incorporate all known thought. They are however oil and water. The subjectivist, as example, is or believes in mysticism such as Marxism or Catholicism or egalitarianism. All forms of theft.

I would ask the subjectivists here one question.

Who is entitled to the value you produce in your life, and value is not just wealth, than you are. Your neighbor? Some skid row junkie in a far distant city? Some corrupt venal politician or bureaucrat?

PCS

Virginia

Sic Semper Tyrannis !

concernedcitizenx5's picture
concernedcitizenx5
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 15 2011
Posts: 26
The point is this.

For thousands of years men have been ruling over other men. When too few men make the rules, the rules tend to favor the rulemaker. How do the rule makers stay in power? That has puzzled me for a long time. If the men working for the rule makers had any moral responsibility they would just not follow orders and remove corrupt rulers from power. Greed is all powerful. That is the point. Whether it is Ayn Rand, or Marx or socialism or capitalism. As long as there are not checks and balances or enough truly educated people to recognize bull when they hear/see it. Nothing will ever change. Greed will conquer. And all we will do is talk about and compare who is right and who is wrong. There needs to be an end of all financial/power gain over anyone's labor. Anymore, the money we are paid for our labor is a pitance compared to what the people at the top make. I always question why I should have to struggle to pay a mortgage. I don't mind paying for something I need. And a house is a need. But why should I have to pay a bank 200,000 over the cost of the house? So I struggle. The CEO of big bank lives very high on the hog. What physically did that CEO do to earn that money? Very little, if anything. Got in his/her car and drove the office?Put up with rush hour traffic maybe?

Magnacarta, I am trying not to sound bitter. I am not. I am saddened. We should be coming up with solutions and all we do is compare systems and argue. I grew up dirt poor and poorly educated. That was my only crime. And because there are slicksters at the top and many in between trying to get to the top. I will always struggle within a system that I am forced to live in. Created by a few rule makers.

land2341's picture
land2341
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2009
Posts: 402
magnacarta wrote: Rand was
magnacarta wrote:

Rand was an objectivist. most who are posting here are subjectivists. These two philosophical foundations incorporate all known thought. They are however oil and water. The subjectivist, as example, is or believes in mysticism such as Marxism or Catholicism or egalitarianism. All forms of theft.

I would ask the subjectivists here one question.

Who is entitled to the value you produce in your life, and value is not just wealth, than you are. Your neighbor? Some skid row junkie in a far distant city? Some corrupt venal politician or bureaucrat?

PCS

Virginia

Sic Semper Tyrannis !

There in lies the rub.  What you term subjectivists is really humanist.  Have you studied Dan Ariely?  His book Predictably Irrational is one of the seminal books on the irrationality of how humans make financial decisions.  But, human irrationality is not new,  Socrates knew it and most humans have known it for, well, ever.   

During the time of the rise of Rand and Nash america was in a love affair with science.  It was a wonderful thing that we were leaving behind superstition and myth for hard cold facts.  But, we took ideas like game theory and applied it to areas of human life that it did not apply to.  Objectivism has its place.  But, we can and have proven incontrovertibly that humans do not make good rational financial decisions.  They make decisions about money based on irrational short term motives that often, they themselves do not fully understand.

Recently, Highland Insurance fired their CEO,  head of this massive merger after he dumped his wife, took up an affair with a married employee, used company resources to investigate her,  and when she dumped him  he threatened the life of her husband.  So, what objective measure led him to these decisions?  

Last year I met some students with Aspergers.  They explained to me that they are not handicapped.  They beleive that without emotions they are actually the next evolution of mankind.  And perhaps they are right.  I don't think so,  but they at the very elast would be able to DO objectivism in  a way we mere humans (Ayn included) cannot.

 

magnacarta's picture
magnacarta
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 29 2012
Posts: 7
humanist

Well no, humanists are subjectivists. That is the objective reality.

magnacarta's picture
magnacarta
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 29 2012
Posts: 7
Cost

$200,000 over the cost of the house? You must be living in a pretty expensive house or have a very high interest rate. The rest of your post is saying that life should be fair. It isn't.

 

concernedcitizenx5's picture
concernedcitizenx5
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 15 2011
Posts: 26
Cost.

Borrow on a 30 year mortgage and look at what you pay at the end of that mortgage. The rate may be lower now but this still puts people into nothing more than debt slavery. And no life isn't fair. And financial systems make sure of that. And the people controlling those system benefit from them. I guess what I am trying to say is this. I am well aware of the fact that intelligence levels, awareness and quickness of mind varies among people. And given that fact, why should a person who maybe won't be a highly paid ceo or president have to struggle financially just to survive? That is the system that we have now. The money that we on the lower end of the economic scale earn does nothing more than make banks and Walmart  a lot of money. Keeps me right were I am at. I don't know you or your situation but my view comes from the bottom. And my view does not suffer from envy. I do not envy people who have a lot of money and things. We don't really need it. Maybe my thought is to even the scales of financial justice. If someone wants to spend their life persuing money and possesions. So be it. But they should not be allowed to do that at the expense of others.

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
Self Inflicted Slavery

Borrow on a 30 year mortgage and look at what you pay at the end of that mortgage. The rate may be lower now but this still puts people into nothing more than debt slavery.

That $200k is the price you pay to have something now when you have not saved the money to pay for it yourself. You did not have to buy a house, you could have rented instead and saved money over time to buy a house outright, you voluntarily became a debt slave so quit complaining.

And given that fact, why should a person who maybe won't be a highly paid ceo or president have to struggle financially just to survive?

So who exactly is to blame for this? I never was a CEO or a President and in the 1990's I made around $45k/ year and never had to struggle for anything, in fact I had between $6k to $10k of extra money in my checking most of the time.

Point you finger at the govt and how it's inflation of the currency has made saving for anything impossible. Then all the regulations, rules, taxes, unions have driven companies out of the US because they were unable to compete in a global market.

But they should not be allowed to do that at the expense of others.

A company or corporation can not really force you to do anything but guess which entity can?

 

For the rest of you with a few exceptions,

How are AR's ideas extreme, do you think that the belief in the non-initiation of force is extreme? Do you think that voluntary exchange in a free market is extreme? Do you believe that owning property that you worked for is extreme? AR ideas consisted mainly of leaving others alone to pursue their own happiness, is this extreme?

I think forcing people to do things they normally wouldn't do is extreme. I think only criminal mentalities would be attracted to govt jobs and if you read the news how could you disagree? Look at the what's happening in the world and tell me that this is not an extreme case of irrationality..

concernedcitizenx5's picture
concernedcitizenx5
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 15 2011
Posts: 26
Self inflicted?

(That $200k is the price you pay to have something now when you have not saved the money to pay for it yourself. You did not have to buy a house, you could have rented instead and saved money over time to buy a house outright, you voluntarily became a debt slave so quit complaining.)

Apartments are fine if that is the way you want to live.What an apartment costs in a decent neighbor does not allow most working class with a family to save anything. And my wife and I are very good with money. What you don't seem to understand is that any region that a person is born in has the haves and the have nots. I was a have not. So was my wife. The haves control the have nots through labor/wages thereby effecting education and social/evironmental conditions which leads to my point. When an owner is solely interested in profit and improving their own life at the cost of someone else. That is wrong. And since a dishonest person will do most anything to get money and if they have the right connections. More honest owners of business find it hard just to survive. I have seen that myself. Greedy people will partner to put others out of business. And if that is the nature of business then that leaves little to be disired.

 Someone growing up in an unstable home environment because the economic conditions in which their parents have to struggle creates a large percentage of working class poor. Sure some MAY make it out. That is a very low number though. Given my current education level and the skill that I have chosen to make a living I may be able to have a house by time I am ready to expire. And I did not ask for my life. It was predetermined by people who control the financial sytems that we have to live within.

The government and business/banks/corporations for the most part are different departments of the same outfit. Government is the enforcement arm of banks/corporations(the ones who have the capital to control). Inflation does nothing more than create more money for the money creators(banks/Fed) and tightens the grip on society so that at some point we will all be nothing more than debt slaves. Maybe it was a choice for you but for others without the poor reasoning skills due to upbringing it is not a choice. It is a harsh reality. School of hard knocks.

Judging by your comments you have a long way to go towards compassion/understanding.

magnacarta's picture
magnacarta
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 29 2012
Posts: 7
Mortgages and fair

How much should the lender for the money for your 30 year payoff be allowed to make?What you term as a large sum over the cost is their entitled profit that you agreed to. In addition they have to take into account inflation and over 30 years it can be extremely destructive as you well know. You can always rent and there is a good argument for that for many people. You post as if you want a handout.  I have been on the bottom where I lived on the second floor of an unheated 1835farmhouse in a northern climate and had to take out the garbage. There were other times when all there was to eat was potatoes.

 I have also made several millions over a 50 plus year work time.

What i have or don't have is completely my responsibility or my wife's and my responsibility. You are also completely responsible for where you are and where you ain't. I also worked at least two jobs of one kind or another for almost my entire working life. I would be working today if my hearing was any good and i am 74.

Try paying a few dollars towards the principal on your mortgage over a few years and you will have a decrease in what you owe over the 30 years. One of my mortgages back in  the 70s was 9%.

Enough if you can not see what is evident.

I have a friend who Ame from Africa and a very poor background. He is a true African. He came and worked and went to school and got his PHD. He and I sat in the Ann Arbor

main library after he had been robbed,$5000, by another Black man who he thought was selling him a car and just plain took their money and ran.

My friend could not understand why Americas Blacks or a whole lot of them had nothing but gripes about what was their lot as he pointed out compared to what he had in Africa they had paradise and all they had to do is spend some time int the Library. Instead almost every Library in Detroit is closed and boarded up and unemployment is 50%.

Sorry but, i do not feel sorry for any one in this country who does not get it. So read this again and pay attention to the where you are and where you ain't.

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
What rate?
magnacarta wrote:

How much should the lender for the money for your 30 year payoff be allowed to make?What you term as a large sum over the cost is their entitled profit that you agreed to. In addition they have to take into account inflation and over 30 years it can be extremely destructive as you well know. 

I think that is the problem.  How can you answer that question when the entity making the loan has the ability to create that money out of thin air?  Most people can get their head around the idea of compensating a lender for the risk that their money is not returned (default).  But when that money is created by fiat via fractional reserve lending, it is no longer clear what interest rate is appropriate.  What is very clear is that if you are going to allow  an entity to create money out of nothing it should not be able to abuse that privilege.  Charging interest to a government that gave that entity the right to create the money in the first place or making speculative bets with this money are clearly an abuse.

Brainless's picture
Brainless
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 9 2008
Posts: 150
consideration

Most mortgage contracts are probably not even legal. If only one party offers consideration, the agreement is not legally a binding contract.

Next time you pay the mortgage bill send them some papers with numbers printed on it. This would probably even it out and it will be 'Quid Pro Quo'

The playing field is not level, and that gives large distortions.

 

 

David.a.Isaksson's picture
David.a.Isaksson
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 29 2010
Posts: 17
To me it is amazing how

To me it is amazing how people an talk about corrupt governments and governments forcing people to do things without also recognizing that corporations are doing the same thing. Only, nowadays corporations are in many ways controlling the government and there is almost nothing you can do about the atrocities done by corporations.

The same thing can probably be said about governemnt, and you might argue that it is government regulations fault that corporations are what they are, but in any case saying that corporations have no blame and that you can just choose to not associate with them is rather naive in my opinon.

concernedcitizenx5's picture
concernedcitizenx5
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 15 2011
Posts: 26
One thing I find strange is.....

If big business(the job creator's.....in China) are so concerned about the Government being in their business. Then why are giving so much money in donations to political campaigns? If they are hoping that the candidate that they are bribing...er, donating to is going to change things. They probably have more money than brains.Or, as I said before. They are just two parts of one system.

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
Apartments are fine if that

Apartments are fine if that is the way you want to live.What an apartment costs in a decent neighbor does not allow most working class with a family to save anything

So where did you get the down payment for the house?

Judging by your comments you have a long way to go towards compassion/understanding.

I have both if you deserve it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments