Market failures

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Neither. Dagny wasn't raped.

You're confusing rough sex with non-consensual sex.

 

[ksen]

uh-huh

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Wow. You must be boring in the bedroom.

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, I have read Rand.

So . . .

I'm so sorry. There are self-help groups for readers of Ayn Rand.

 

[ksen]

Wow. You must be boring in the bedroom.

that's not what ur mom said

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

She said she slept through it and didn't even notice.

 

[ksen]

lol

 

[lpetrich]

Let me tackle the second part first. I have not seen any of these movies. From what I have heard they weren't very good. That's not surprising to me because I have read Atlas Shrugged and concluded that it's a pretty bad novel as well. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Ayn Rand intended it as didactic fiction. Unfortunately, the didactic part spiraled out of control. Her publisher wanted her to trim down her characters' speeches, for instance.

But, at least based upon the novel, "capitalists" are not depicted as "Nietzschean heroes."

What do you call Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden and Francisco d'Anconia and John Galt?

Indeed, most capitalists, including Dagny Taggert's own brother, are depicted as crony capitalists who make their money by using the government to suppress their competitors.

Most?

When I see arguments like that, it seems to me that I'm reading religious apologetics.
Randian: Capitalists are all Randian heroes, John Galts. We must respect our betters and allow them to rule the world.
Critic: (lots of stuff about bad capitalists)
Randian: Those are Not True Capitalists, but James Taggarts.

Now, with respect to market failures, the argument is basically subjective.

Actually, there are reasonably objective measures within economics, measures that we use in our everyday affairs.

First of all, how does the market circumstance require that one person's gain must lead to another person's loss? X offers a product and Y voluntarily pays the price for that product. X and Y both gain.

Why don't you study economic bubbles some time? Or the Tragedy of the Commons. Or the Tragedy of the Anti-Commons.

The Tragedy of the Commons. You and your friends like to graze cows in a meadow. Your self-interest is to have lots of cows. But your friends' self interest is that also. If you and your friends have too many cows for the meadow, the cows will overgraze it.

The Tragedy of the Anti-Commons. You and your friends want a road going through your property and your friends' property for easier travel. But none of you are willing to sacrifice the real estate necessary to build that road on.

I'm not sure what the gross receipts of the Atlas Shrugged movies have to do with market failures.

The market failure here is the failure of self-pitying capitalists to finance a movie that shows what misunderstood geniuses they are. If they had done so, it would look like more self-pity on their part, but it would be a bit more creative than simply whining about how their critics want to march them off into prison camps.

One of the ways to detect a person whose knowledge of Objectivism comes from that source is the inevitable Nietzsche reference. They both advocate some form of individualism, but beyond that the similarity ends.

It ends? I find a LOT of similarity. Friedrich Nietzsche: "The object is to attain that enormous energy of greatness which can model the man of the future by means of discipline and also by means of the annihilation of millions of the bungled and botched, and which can yet avoid going to ruin at the sight of the suffering created thereby, the like of which has never been seen before." That seems a lot like being willing to destroy civilization because you and your friends are not worshipped as godlike heroes and treated as society's legitimate rulers.

Then there is the stereotypical pointing out that she favored businessmen qua businessmen, forgetting that half the villains of her books were businessmen.

As I pointed out earlier, this seems like religious apologetics to me.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, saying that James Taggart was a villain of the book is "religious apologetic".

Yes, there is similarity to Nietzsche, they both advocated a form of individualism. I did not deny that there was no similarity at all, that would be a "straw man" on your part. I instead pointed out that they advocated different forms of individualism, but only someone who has any familiarity with the source material would know that. Someone who thinks that James Taggart cannot be a villain because the is a businessman and someone who thinks that individualism automatically equates to Nietzsche would not be familiar with the source material in the first place.

So, what exactly was it you think the heroes of Atlas Shrugged were demanding. If you say "worship" it will prove to me that your knowledge of Objectivism comes from reading criticisms written by authors whose knowledge comes from reading criticisms written by authors whose knowledge comes from reading criticisms written by authors whose knowledge comes from reading criticisms written by authors whose knowledge comes from reading criticisms written by authors whose knowledge comes from reading criticisms written by authors etc etc etc.

Again, your reference to Market Failure makes no sense. Every textbook and dictionary definition of Market Failure is when the allocation of goods and services is considered sub-optimal by some arbitrary standard. What it generally means is that the supply curve and the demand curve cannot intersect for various reasons, usually involving a shortage of a good or a price higher than the market can bear. Having a product fail to generate revenue is nothing at all like a market failure.

If you're going to discuss economics, it might benefit you to learn what a Market Failure is, and it would definitely benefit you to not get sidetracked by a discussion of Objectivism.

 

[Togo]

One of the ways to detect a person whose knowledge of Objectivism comes from that source is the inevitable Nietzsche reference. They both advocate some form of individualism, but beyond that the similarity ends.

It ends? I find a LOT of similarity. Friedrich Nietzsche: "The object is to attain that enormous energy of greatness which can model the man of the future by means of discipline and also by means of the annihilation of millions of the bungled and botched, and which can yet avoid going to ruin at the sight of the suffering created thereby, the like of which has never been seen before." That seems a lot like being willing to destroy civilization because you and your friends are not worshipped as godlike heroes and treated as society's legitimate rulers.

I can see similarities. Both writers portrayed 'great man' theories, both celebrated the triumph of individual will over circumstance, both divided the universe into people who embraced their ideals and were great, and those who rejected them and where therefore inferior. Granted they both celebrate different features in these people, but if your objection is to the entire class of theory, and the elitism and somewhat self-defeated self-justification that comes with it, then that's not a terribly important difference. If you're an objectivist yourself, then of course these distinctions are crucial.

Saying that a comparison to Nietsche proves you haven't read Rand's books is just a fairly lazy demonstration that the speaker themselves has never read Nietsche. Which is a fairly safe bit, since it's one of the few things that's harder to read than Rand herself.

 

[boneyard bill]

lpetrich writes:

Ayn Rand intended it as didactic fiction. Unfortunately, the didactic part spiraled out of control. Her publisher wanted her to trim down her characters' speeches, for instance.

It is didactic fiction. I just isn't good didactic fiction. Her publisher's suggestion would have been a good start, but the object of good fiction is to show, not tell. What tragedy results from that actions of Rand's crony capitalists? Why should we care about Dagny Taggert when we are shown, endlessly, that she is perfectly capable of taking care of herself? Then we are hit over the head with her message several times. But we are led to care about it. We aren't shown the damages that the crony capitalist creates.

But, at least based upon the novel, "capitalists" are not depicted as "Nietzschean heroes."

What do you call Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden and Francisco d'Anconia and John Galt?

They are creative individuals who happen to use their creativity to make money, but other characters are also presented as creative. The composer for example. These people are able to make better cigarettes in Colorado than crony capitalists are able to make in North Carolina.

Indeed, most capitalists, including Dagny Taggert's own brother, are depicted as crony capitalists who make their money by using the government to suppress their competitors.

Most?

I certainly didn't get the impression that Rand considered her heroes to be in the majority even among capitalists. They are a very select few who have access to total truth.

When I see arguments like that, it seems to me that I'm reading religious apologetics.
Randian: Capitalists are all Randian heroes, John Galts. We must respect our betters and allow them to rule the world.
Critic: (lots of stuff about bad capitalists)
Randian: Those are Not True Capitalists, but James Taggarts.

I don't see what you see about any of this that is religious. Rand herself was a very outspoken atheist.

I don't think Ayn Rand would respond the way you suggest, but that is irrelevant. The question is what her readers would get out of it, and I find it hard to believe that the perceptive reader would come away from it with the conclusion, "All capitalists are good people."

Now, with respect to market failures, the argument is basically subjective.

Actually, there are reasonably objective measures within economics, measures that we use in our everyday affairs.

I've never denied that. I only claimed that the argument in the OP was subjective.

First of all, how does the market circumstance require that one person's gain must lead to another person's loss? X offers a product and Y voluntarily pays the price for that product. X and Y both gain.

Why don't you study economic bubbles some time? Or the Tragedy of the Commons. Or the Tragedy of the Anti-Commons.

The Tragedy of the Commons. You and your friends like to graze cows in a meadow. Your self-interest is to have lots of cows. But your friends' self interest is that also. If you and your friends have too many cows for the meadow, the cows will overgraze it.

The Tragedy of the Anti-Commons. You and your friends want a road going through your property and your friends' property for easier travel. But none of you are willing to sacrifice the real estate necessary to build that road on.

Market bubbles do not arise out of necessity. They arise because of an increase in the supply of money. This increase can be the result of exogenous factors, but it rarely it.

What does the market have to do with the Tragedy of the Commons or of the Anti-Tragedy of the Commons?

I'm not sure what the gross receipts of the Atlas Shrugged movies have to do with market failures.

The market failure here is the failure of self-pitying capitalists to finance a movie that shows what misunderstood geniuses they are. If they had done so, it would look like more self-pity on their part, but it would be a bit more creative than simply whining about how their critics want to march them off into prison camps.

They made bad movies from a bad book and lost money. Sounds to me like the market worked just fine.

One of the ways to detect a person whose knowledge of Objectivism comes from that source is the inevitable Nietzsche reference. They both advocate some form of individualism, but beyond that the similarity ends.

It ends? I find a LOT of similarity. Friedrich Nietzsche: "The object is to attain that enormous energy of greatness which can model the man of the future by means of discipline and also by means of the annihilation of millions of the bungled and botched, and which can yet avoid going to ruin at the sight of the suffering created thereby, the like of which has never been seen before." That seems a lot like being willing to destroy civilization because you and your friends are not worshipped as godlike heroes and treated as society's legitimate rulers.

I didn't know that Ayn Rand was out to destroy civilization. Nietzsche wrote about the Will to Power. His individualism was the individualism of the exceptional man who would control the lesser beings of the earth and suppress any temptations to show compassion in the process. I think their are a lot of similarities between Rand and Nietzsche, but Rand's individualism comes from John Locke, not from Nietzsche. Nietzsche was not at all about the individualism of the masses.

Then there is the stereotypical pointing out that she favored businessmen qua businessmen, forgetting that half the villains of her books were businessmen.

As I pointed out earlier, this seems like religious apologetics to me.

I can only characterize this as a very enigmatic statement.

 

[lpetrich]

Market bubbles do not arise out of necessity. They arise because of an increase in the supply of money. This increase can be the result of exogenous factors, but it rarely it.

Identify the mass printings of money that accompanied various economic bubbles. Yes, identify them. Claiming that they exist doesn't count.

Bubbles have happened in numerous things: houses and real estate, high-tech companies, tulips, Cabbage Patch Kids, ... what big printing of money accompanied the Cabbage Patch Kids bubble?

What does the market have to do with the Tragedy of the Commons or of the Anti-Tragedy of the Commons?

The Tragedy of the Commons is sometimes cited as proof of the evils of collectivism. The Tragedy of the Anti-Commons shows that one can go too far in the opposite direction in dividing up resources.

Nietzsche wrote about the Will to Power. His individualism was the individualism of the exceptional man who would control the lesser beings of the earth and suppress any temptations to show compassion in the process.

Some people consider that good business management, and judging from her heroes' behavior, Ayn Rand did also.

Then there is the stereotypical pointing out that she favored businessmen qua businessmen, forgetting that half the villains of her books were businessmen.

As I pointed out earlier, this seems like religious apologetics to me.

I can only characterize this as a very enigmatic statement.

Because it is like the No True Scotsman argument, so often employed in such apologetics.

 

[lpetrich]

Neither. Dagny wasn't raped.

You're confusing rough sex with non-consensual sex.

That's what they all say.

Legitimized Rapes - Front Porch Republic

In Rand’s lesser-known Night of January 16th, one Bjorn Faulkner rapes a woman named Karen Andre when she comes to interview with him for a job. She has such a good time being raped that she becomes his partner in business and sexiness for the rest of his days on earth.

In The Fountainhead, Howard Roark rapes Dominique Francon.
In Atlas Shrugged, Francisco d'Anconia, Hank Rearden, and John Galt all rape Dagny Taggart.
Or at least those male characters sort-of-rape those female ones. I think that that says something about Ayn Rand's sexual fantasies.

BTW, the three AS moves go through three Dagnies. She is arguably the most central character in the movies, but the movies' complete cast turnovers include her also.

 

[lpetrich]

Another, bigger, market failure is economic slumps. Ideally, an economy ought to grow or shrink slowly and steadily, without economic bubbles or economic slumps. But over the last two centuries, there have been several of them in the US and the UK at least. These include some big ones: the Great Depression and the current slump.

Capitalist Panglossians tend to argue that these are all the fault of "the government" in some way, even when there was not much government involvement. A more plausible explanation is reaction-time differences leading to overshooting. Building of productive capacity takes months to years to do, and it's done in response to currently perceived demand for the products. But it eventually overshoots, and the market collapses from oversupply. It may take some time to consume that oversupply, but as it's consumed, building starts again.

Economist John Maynard Keynes is best-known for proposing deficit spending during slumps to keep them from getting too bad. But he also proposed stopping that spending as the economy improves, a policy that has proved less popular. At one point, he stated "I am not a Keynesian," an echo of a similar statement by Karl Marx about some of his followers' theories: "If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist".

 

[dismal]

Another, bigger, market failure is economic slumps.

You are aware the term "market failure" has a specific meaning?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There are similarities between Nietzsche and Rand, but also colossal differences.

They both start from the same place, objecting to a specific code of morality. This code of morality is sufficiently large that it can be considered one of the major codes of morality within western civ, but it is actually pretty easy to point out that it is not the only code of morality. Rand would say that the others are variations on the one, and while I'm inclined to agree with her I'm not going to defend that point here.

This code of morality is, of course, a code of self-sacrifice, be it to god or to the masses or to the state. The point of it is that in this particular moral code the individual is of little value compared to that which the individual is supposed to serve. Anyone familiar with Nietzsche or Rand would recognize this point and wouldn't need to argue with me over it - we agree that Nietzsche and Rand both saw it.

And they both agree that this code of morality should be rejected and the individual prized.

But there the similarities end for they embrace very different forms of individualism.

With Nietzsche the superman is not bound by any morality. With Rand the "superman" is bound by a different morality that places the individual at the center but does constrain how that individual would treat others. In Rand's view, those who seek power are second-handers or moochers. Two of her characters show an example of one who should have been a hero but instead wasn't, being Dr. Robert Stadler and publisher Gail Wynand. The hero of the Fountainhead, Howard Roark, really did like Gail Wynand, and felt pity for him when Wynand bragged about how much power he accumulated. The heroes of Atlas Shrugged sometimes wished they could like Dr. Stadler, but ultimately felt contempt for him as a sell-out.

An Objectivist hero does not seek political power. A Nietzschian hero certainly seeks political power.

And Objectivist hero does not seek to abuse the rights of others, but has no problem standing back and letting others destroy themselves and ignoring all the cries that it is the fault of the Objectivist hero. The heroes of Atlas Shrugged did not destroy the country, they stood back and failed to stop the destruction. Only three of the heroes can be accused of destruction - Midas Mulligan who closed his own bank, Francisco D'Anconia who destroyed his how copper mines, and Ragnar Danneskjold who robbed government relief ships but no private vessels. Ragnar is a special case, but Francisco and Midas only destroyed their own property.

A Nietzschian hero is not restrained the way that an Objectivist hero is. He has no need to respect the life, liberty, or property of other people as they are beneath him.

In The Fountainhead, Rand described her opponents as "second-handers", in Atlas Shrugged she subdivided them into two groups, the moochers and the looters. The moochers say "you have a moral obligation to give me what you have" while the looters say "my gun say you will give me what you have." A Nietzschian hero would of course be one of the looters, one of the enemies of Rand's Objectivist heroes.

And no, Dagny Taggart was not raped at any time in the novel, not by Francisco, not by Rearden, and not by Galt.