Eviction

[Gretsch]

I'm way behind the times. I am just now reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand for the first time. For years I've noticed it on the shelves but passed by it without too much thought. From what I understand this 50+ year old book is having quite a resurgence in popularity, mostly because people are seeing just how insightful it was/is. It is considered by many to be one of the most important novels of the 20th century.

Anyway, it's a big book and I'm not going to rush through it. It'll take me months to do it justice. Any thoughts from anyone who has read it?

Yeah, it'll scare the shit out of you. I was underlining stuff that has parallels to what's happening right now. Spooky.

It's a great book and I'm sure you'll like it.
Also...she could have used an editor.

 

[Sal Paradise]

I'm way behind the times. I am just now reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand for the first time. For years I've noticed it on the shelves but passed by it without too much thought. From what I understand this 50+ year old book is having quite a resurgence in popularity, mostly because people are seeing just how insightful it was/is. It is considered by many to be one of the most important novels of the 20th century.

Anyway, it's a big book and I'm not going to rush through it. It'll take me months to do it justice. Any thoughts from anyone who has read it?

It fits a certain mindset, for example Grumpy would probably like it.

I read both books as a teenager because I wanted to be ( and am) an architect and Frank Lloyd Wright, who is kind of my hero, is the basis of The Fountainhead. My opinion, its a book that treats the readers like suckers (not directed at Grumpy. just MHO ) its no wonder its the basis for some pop culture resurgance. Rand led a group, including Alan Greenspan (virtually the architect of our current banking crisis) where she was kind of the leader and those who followed her and really believed were "better, smarter, more moral" than the common people who were just too weak and/or or stupid and who supposedly lived off ... ahh hell, it will take me the better part of the night to completely debunk Rand. I find her writing stilted and archaic. Imagine - her hero was an architect who dynamited his own building. In real life we just write a change order...

Look - when you are reading the book, just imagine Rand is trying to flatter so she can suck you in. Thats in effect what she ( is doing in her writing) did with Greenspan and her other followers - she convinced them that because of her ideas - which they followed - that meant they were all so much better than everyone else, especially the poor and working class.

Grumpy, the labor market is depressed and that drives the wages down which makes us worth less per hour, hence the 2 jobs. Thats more because of women in the workplace ( doubles the supply of workers) , global trde and cheap chinese and japanese, indian imports than anything else..

 

[Gretsch]

It fits a certain mindset, for example Grumpy would probably like it.

I read both books as a teenager because I wanted to be ( and am) an architect and Frank Lloyd Wright, who is kind of my hero, is the basis of The Fountainhead. My opinion, its a book that treats the readers like suckers (not directed at Grumpy. just MHO ) its no wonder its the basis for some pop culture resurgance. Rand led a group, including Alan Greenspan (virtually the architect of our current banking crisis) where she was kind of the leader and those who followed her and really believed were "better, smarter, more moral" than the common people who were just too weak and/or or stupid and who supposedly lived off ... ahh hell, it will take me the better part of the night to completely debunk Rand. I find her writing stilted and archaic. Imagine - her hero was an architect who dynamited his own building. In real life we just write a change order...

Look - when you are reading the book, just imagine Rand is trying to flatter so she can suck you in. Thats in effect what she ( is doing in her writing) did with Greenspan and her other followers - she convinced them that because of her ideas - which they followed - that meant they were all so much better than everyone else, especially the poor and working class.

Grumpy, the labor market is depressed and that drives the wages down which makes us worth less per hour, hence the 2 jobs. Thats more because of women in the workplace ( doubles the supply of workers) , global trde and cheap chinese and japanese, indian imports than anything else..

Associating Rand with Greenspan is a red herring. Greenspan hasn't even resembled an Objectivist for a long time. I read some of his older works and was surprised that this was the same person (he even makes a case against the fiat money system).

 

[Sal Paradise]

No,if you read what I was saying, Rand and Greenspan hung out together around the time these books came out. Greenspan was one of her followers. They were more than a group of friends, to hang with Rand, you had to follow her and believe her philosophy.Getting back to the OP for a minute, Greenspans money policy , essentially lowering interest rates so that the real estate bubble kept inflating, thats one of the main reasons we now have all this real estate depreciating, foreclosures . Another thing, Greenspan was one of the chief proponents of the sub prime mortgages.

I am not the one who brought up Rand. Where this all fits into Rand - probably the idea that any type of regulation is bad, because the financial wizards are so much better than us, they know whats best and can do no wrong. Like Atlas, Greenspan merely shrugs. Even when they create a disaster like this it must still be the fault of the little guy for not being rich in the first place.

 

[Speed3Chris]

Good discussion. More like the financial wizards many times are those that feed the hungry if you believe in trickle down and who own and run businesses. Poor men generally don't own, lead or manage companies. The greed of these ambitious men is good in the sense their greed trickles down to others that don't have the same vision of how to run a business. Lack of regulation promotes stratification of wealth however. Smart fat cats figure out how to become fatter. A capitalism conundrum if poor people get left out in the cold. Obama-omics is redistribute wealth which is the antithesis of free enterprise or Darwanism...a disincentive for private business to invest in favor of propping up those that don't produce or as much. How do you build wealth for everybody when there is such a socioeconomic divide based upon education disparity? Almost impossible and the dynamic of poor people becoming wealthy is a very long process if even at all feasible. Why the bubble and melt down?...the very ingredient that drives capitalism...greed. Lots of blame to go around. Is it fair to blame poor people that are uneducated and want to live in a half a million dollar house? False premise because lack of education many times breeds bad decision making. Drawing from history, banks didn't care about writing crappy sub prime loans because here-to-fore they were rewarded for it...as banks used to make money anyway when the buyers defaulted...because housing used to appreciate...but then banks got stuck when the house of cards came tumbling down and housing prices plummeted accordingly...chicken and egg...and people started to lose their jobs and banks couldn't control the default rate based upon their calculated risk taking...bubble burst. Did many believe we were all living in a bubble? Some suspected it because they looked at the entire global economy. Bottom line if there is one? If you look at the rest of the world, every one of us live above a standard of living exceeding what each of us produce....from assembly line worker to outrageous pillage of CEO's. If the rest of the world makes $0.10 on the US dollar for what they produce each day compared to us then we have our answer if we exchange goods with them which we do to reap their cheap labor. Things stop being manufacturered here as a result...can't compete. School teachers or assembly line workers shouldn't be living in $400,000 houses if you look at the rest of the world. Our false economy is collapsing and cooling off and the rest of the world is heating up...analogous to a large heat transfer equation....which over time will become more normalized and economically homogeneous in a more global economy. Education is the cornerstone. The US losing out in education and losing our manufacturing and techical superiority will relegate the US to less than superpower status. We have just gone though a time of unparalleled economic prosperity (pendulum swing) we will never see again built on debt...the very definition of acquiring more wealth than goods and service we produce relative to now global pricing.

 

[Gretsch]

No,if you read what I was saying, Rand and Greenspan hung out together around the time these books came out. Greenspan was one of her followers. They were more than a group of friends, to hang with Rand, you had to follow her and believe her philosophy.Getting back to the OP for a minute, Greenspans money policy , essentially lowering interest rates so that the real estate bubble kept inflating, thats one of the main reasons we now have all this real estate depreciating, foreclosures . Another thing, Greenspan was one of the chief proponents of the sub prime mortgages.

I am not the one who brought up Rand. Where this all fits into Rand - probably the idea that any type of regulation is bad, because the financial wizards are so much better than us, they know whats best and can do no wrong. Like Atlas, Greenspan merely shrugs. Even when they create a disaster like this it must still be the fault of the little guy for not being rich in the first place.

And if you'll read what I was saying it's specious to say that Rand's arguments are incorrect because Greenspan was once a follower of hers. Guilt by association.

Your analysis of Objectivism is pedestrian at best.

 

[Sal Paradise]

And if you'll read what I was saying it's specious to say that Rand's arguments are incorrect because Greenspan was once a follower of hers. Guilt by association.

Your analysis of Objectivism is pedestrian at best.

I didn't say that, nor did I ( or would I ) offer an in depth analysis here at NBR. I merely began filling in some blanks on the books for a poster who asked for thoughts on Rand's books. What I wrote, was true. Greenspan was a follower of Rand. Since you obviously want to debate the Rand theories, or more accurately you want to debate a straw man. Let me say simply there is a direct line between Rand and Gordon Gecko (greed is good) that points to our current financial crisis. People can read for themselves. There is a much more that points to Rand being wrong often,but NBR probably isn't the place as politics are not discussed here, but to take a play from you - for you to deny that Greenspan was one of the chief causes of the financial crisis, or that he was a follower of Rand , is incorrect.

Allright I am done with this, if anyone wants a lecture on Rand and greenspan they can PM me.....

 

[Speed3Chris]

A commentary on Greenspan's inability to rein in the housing bubble:
When pressed about the Fed’s lack of oversight throughout all of these shenanigans, Greenspan defended himself in two principle ways. First, he argued, in effect, that the Fed Chairman cannot really do anything about speculative bubbles. Greenspan freely admitted that he did not understand the complexities of some of these “exotic” new financial products, like CDOs. But Greenspan insisted that, even if he did, he could not have done anything because trying to deflate the housing bubble would have caused an economic calamity of its own and, besides, Congress would not have liked it. In short, his hands were tied.

My comment is...if a guy with a Phd in Economics can't figure out the instruments that are devised to deceive and bilk investors, then what chance do common investors have?
Greenspan simply believes in pandering to the baser instincts of human behavior i.e. greed which will let the market take care of bubbles like it is now because bubbles inevitably burst. Is it painful? Yes but he believes a more laissez-faire economy is better than the greater regulation that Obama wants which will likely take the large sine wave out but we will live in a morass of economic malaise accordingly if you take away confidence for small and big business to invest...what has stalled the ecomony right now...fear of pending legislation....effect of Obamacare and higher taxes. Investment = more jobs which takes a leap of faith which right now doesn't exist.
As to Rand...Rand's philosophy is only obtusely related to our commerce system anyway...as it is already highly regulated from decision to deficit spend, control of money supply, interest rates controling inflation, progressive taxation of the rich...welfare for the poor, unemployment compensation etc...nothing really free enterprise about it.

 

[Baltobonneville]

I like to read, and I've read some heavy stuff including Russian novels, Marx and Lenin, it doesn't put me off. But when I tried reading Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged), I slogged through 100+ pages before I gave up. In my opinion it was poorly written, naive, and trite.

I recently read a long book review of a new biography of Ayn Rand. The reviewer was not very flattering of her, nor of the book. It was an interesting read.

Memo to those who believe in working hard and saving for oneself: What do you say to the people who did that and watched their investments go down the toilet? There will always be Social Security, where we take collective responsibility for each other, until that's emasculated, supported by the popular misconception that it's "broke" (it's no more "broke" than anything else in the national budget, i.e. it's as "broke" as we want it or don't want it to be).

 

[Gretsch]

I didn't say that, nor did I ( or would I ) offer an in depth analysis here at NBR. I merely began filling in some blanks on the books for a poster who asked for thoughts on Rand's books. What I wrote, was true. Greenspan was a follower of Rand.

-The operative words here are “was a follower”. My point is that Greenspan is as much of an objectivist today as Arlen Specter is a Republican. Objectivism calls for the complete separation of state and economics. This idea is completely in opposition to the concept of a Federal Reserve system and the artificial manipulation of interest rates.

Since you obviously want to debate the Rand theories, or more accurately you want to debate a straw man.

-Please elaborate. Where have I used a straw man?

Let me say simply there is a direct line between Rand and Gordon Gecko (greed is good) that points to our current financial crisis.

-There’s a more direct line that points to the governments meddling in economic affairs.

People can read for themselves.

-Agreed.

There is a much more that points to Rand being wrong often,but NBR probably isn't the place as politics are not discussed here, but to take a play from you - for you to deny that Greenspan was one of the chief causes of the financial crisis, or that he was a follower of Rand , is incorrect.

-Come on Sal, you’re going to hide behind the apron strings of the AUP now? The conversation is more philosophy than politics, all be it the root of the counter argument to the Progressive movement.

Here you counter with a real straw man. Greenspan (specifically, by keeping interest rates artificially low) was very definitely to blame. Your argument is classic guilt by association.

 

[slowgator]

Allright I am done with this, if anyone wants a lecture on Rand and greenspan they can PM me.....

Sal, FWIW, I am currently re-reading Kerouac's ON THE ROAD... and must admit I have thought of you a few times while dong so. In the book, it is obvious that Sal Paradise could give a shit about money or politics... he only was interested in the next adventure which involved little of either.

Given your recent posts, I'm curious how you chose to call yourself Kerouac's alter-ego on this forum???

 

[Speed3Chris]

I like to read, and I've read some heavy stuff including Russian novels, Marx and Lenin, it doesn't put me off. But when I tried reading Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged), I slogged through 100+ pages before I gave up. In my opinion it was poorly written, naive, and trite.

I recently read a long book review of a new biography of Ayn Rand. The reviewer was not very flattering of her, nor of the book. It was an interesting read.

Memo to those who believe in working hard and saving for oneself: What do you say to the people who did that and watched their investments go down the toilet? There will always be Social Security, where we take collective responsibility for each other, until that's emasculated, supported by the popular misconception that it's "broke" (it's no more "broke" than anything else in the national budget, i.e. it's as "broke" as we want it or don't want it to be).

Most of us saw our home prices or worth plummet for sure. I believe the greed argument over and above our government deficit spending because of massive unemployment is the average American was or now is in personal debt. Maxed out credit cards and living in a bigger house than what he produced. In aggragate this is bound to collapse if enough do it. As to investments e.g. the stock market and 401K...if you aren't a student of the market then best to stay away. I am not a financial wiz but I rode the market up twice and didn't let it burn me going down. This isn't that hard provided you don't live in denial and aren't too greedy aka quick to jump in heavy determining a sustained rally and don't stay too long when the warning signs are there. When the Dow was teetering after peaking at 14,000 and volitility was off the map for a sustained period, only denial would make you ride it down.
I also know some that sold the Dow at 8,000 for fear it would fall to 5,000. You have to listen to those that study the market which I try to. Yes some smart guys went bust but most that lost half of their retirement didn't understand the market, rode it up and then right back down.
FWIW I am OUT of the market right now. It may rally but until the fundamentals of a healthy economy dictate and stabilize the volitility, it could easily tumble...especially with the instability in foreign markets we are tied to. To me right now the market is a suckers bet and of course has flat lined with lots of ups and down for the last 10 years.

 

[nohawk]

I remember the crazy amount that we qualified for when we bought our house years ago. But I still thought how are we going to buy food in that new house so we set our own amount based on what we wanted to spend, not what the bank said they would loan us. And as far as the junk mail pre approved credit cards and " pressure" call, I just say No. And if they keep calling I start saying Fuck No.


I was pre qualified for a ridiculous amount when my ex and I bought a home in2006, my credit sucked worse then than now. I just thought that the goverment had relaxed lending requirements to make the proud statements that go along with more new "homeowners". I really dont know much but I did know that we werent gonna be paying double the amount of rent for a swanky 200k house. I had been living on a cash only basis for about 6 years when we got that 119k$ home,when we signed the papers it was like I was getting owned.

 

[Kirkus51]

The amazing thing about home ownership is whether or not you consider it an investment so you can build equity in it and use that at a future date.... Or if you just want a nice place to live in and equity won't matter since you consider it your home and not some sort of investment. To me equity is out there in the ether somewhere since to actually use it free and clear you sell your property and lose your place to live.

Oh by the way the best way to experience "On the Road" is to listen to it on an Audiobook.

 

[geolpilot]

One of the smartest way to get a house is to get two or three on the same lot. They are often cheaper because they can only be sold to someone who wants to be in the rental business, which is a major PITA. We have done that several times. Sometimes, you can get a property with several houses and subdivide it and sell one or more of them and end up with a house for next to nothing. Now, if you are going to play this game, you can't pick the house that you want, but must go for the good deal. If you are always looking and are ready to jump, there are good deals which happen to also be good investments.

 

[slowgator]

Oh by the way the best way to experience "On the Road" is to listen to it on an Audiobook.

Curious as to why. I just finished re-reading the book a few minutes ago and it was so beautifully written, I had to re-read the last few pages, not wanting it to be over. The very last paragraph, a single sentence, is exquisite.

The Dharma Bums is next. Lessgo!

 

[Littlejoe]

Good plan, blame others when you don't make good decisions. Thats like saying sorry officer I know I made the decision to ride a wheelie down main street at 100mph but I really don't think you should ticket me! You should ticket the maker of my bike for making money off of me by selling me a bike capable of popping wheelies at 100mph!

That's an invalid comparison. So nothing like taking what I said out of context. My point is that there is enough blame on both sides.

Why do you think its okay to solely blame the little guy, who may or may not be the smartest person on the block for making bad financial decisions, while think its fine that banks and lenders were allowed to take advantage and lie to that same little guy? When Uncle Guido was making loans like that, he was a crook and loan shark. When Country Wide or Bank of America did it, it was fine business plan. Just because they lined the pockets of our politicians and made it legal doesn't make make right, or make them free of blame.

If these lenders are so smart how did they figure that a person making 20K a year can live in a 400K home or have a 100K in credit card debt? Lending that money is just as stupid as the person borrowing it. Why is it even an option for a person in that wage range to borrow that much?

 

[Speed3Chris]

That's an invalid comparison. So nothing like taking what I said out of context. My point is that there is enough blame on both sides.

Why do you think its okay to solely blame the little guy, who may or may not be the smartest person on the block for making bad financial decisions, while think its fine that banks and lenders were allowed to take advantage and lie to that same little guy? When Uncle Guido was making loans like that, he was a crook and loan shark. When Country Wide or Bank of America did it, it was fine business plan. Just because they lined the pockets of our politicians and made it legal doesn't make make right, or make them free of blame.

If these lenders are so smart how did they figure that a person making 20K a year can live in a 400K home or have a 100K in credit card debt? Lending that money is just as stupid as the person borrowing it. Why is it even an option for a person in that wage range to borrow that much?

I believe and I think like you do is there was equal blame on both sides and why the bubble burst. The banks did what they did because they could. As mentioned previously...the banks started to get burned when house prices plummeted and people started walking away. When people used to default because they couldn't pay their mortgage, housing prices always appreciated and the bank got the better end of the deal. Banks loan based upon calculated risk reward. When housing prices plummeted, the risk they took with ill qualified buyers was too great relative to what equity they had when the buyers walked away. Its kind of like buying anything really...buyer beware. Buyers have to have some discretion but they clearly are not soley to blame and either are the banks as who could have predicted there would be such massive job loss and housing prices would plummet leaving so many upside down on their mortgages without recourse. Yes banks constructed lending instruments based upon deception and same with credit card companies....but still the decision of the buyer to sign on the dotted line and run their credit cards up. Hard to say who is at greater fault as greed is the common denominator on both sides.

 

[Sal Paradise]

Slowgator,

The "Sal Paradise" nic was not one I chose myself. It was given to me in college because I used to talk about Kerouac and OTR, apparently often.

About JK's political views, or lack thereof;Kerouac was a Beat writer, he was extremely non conformist, smoked pot, screwed around whenever he could , drove at high speed, and in general did not respect the status quo. Beats were on the exact opposite side of the political universe from Rand. Am I inconsistent with any of the above? No.

In fact I am far more non conformist than I let on here, if thats any consolation, and I am a wannabe writer (see - here: http://www.newbonnevilleriders.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4485 but again, the Paradise nic was given to me long ago , although few remember anymore.

 

[KingBear]

If one were to examine the influence Rand may have had on Greenspan and thus our current economic condition, who would one credit as influencing our current POTUS and to what kind of future might one have to look forward as a result of that influence? The answers might be discomforting.