A frighteningly true account of how radical free-market atheist Ayn Rand and her disciple Alan Greenspan, as well as Milton Friedman, Michael Milken and others-with the unwitting political aid of conservative Christian leaders and disinterest of liberal Christian leaders-impoverished our financial institutions, corporations and retirement plans by decimating the Puritan business ethic. Provides resources for reinforcing traditional religions against their most serious threat in millennia: the new economic religion that preaches the virtue of selfishness and greed is good to post-Christian America and the world.
Video Rating: 3 / 5
Wall Street All-Stars video: the most extensive financial news video library on the Net. Search our library for classic economists, news clips. Or watch the latest news from a variety of independent sources including the Associated Press, New York Times, Financial Times, The Economist and many more including original videos from the Wall Street All-Stars.
Admin
@wstreetallstars
+Admin
Latest posts by Admin (see all)
- Chat With Scott Rothbort At 1PM Today - October 9, 2024
- Investor Chat for the week of June 17th through June 21st - June 22, 2024
- WSAS University April 22 - 26, 2013 - April 29, 2024
- Platinum Chat April 22 -28, 2013 ($$) - April 28, 2024
- Scott Rothbort to Appear on Bloomberg Radio Today - April 25, 2024
Absolutely spot on!
Thanks. Yes, while the left too often counts on govt to help those in need, the right often dismisses the need. As Rand famously wrote: “It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers…in a shipwreck [a man] should help his fellow passengers, though not at the risk of his own life. But this does not mean that after reaching shore, he should devote his efforts to saving [them] from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever other troubles they might have.”
I liked the differentiation made between personal and social responsibility. Gary notes that Rand emphasized personal initiative, but separate from social responsibility. It seems the political left seized on at least part of this (It’s the economy, stupid) while also trying to hold up social construction. What seems to be missing on all our parts is personal moral virtue, the kind that leads to altruistic behavior-caring for orphans, refugees and extremely ill-those who cannot yet contribute.
Reality forces you to conform a bit once you leave a cult for the real world. I actually feel some compassion for Greenspan as he’s obviously a conflicted individual desperately trying to reconcile the hard lessons of a hard world to an unreal, utopian philosophy. If only the titans of Wall Street were as “noble” and “productive” for society as Rand imagined.
As I noted earlier, Greenspan’s ideas are quoted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. One of them shares her “reverence” for gold. Yet she made the dollar sign, of the Federal Reserve Note, the symbol of her religion, not gold. And the symbol at the head of her casket was reported the dollar sign, not a gold bar. Your reasoning is again conflicted, which would negate it as a legitmate philosophy according to Rand.
You demonstrate my primary fear about O.ism: half truths are more dangerous than untruths. I actually said “Debate: no. Dialogue: yes.” Similarly, Rand taught the virtues of personal responsibility but sadly denounced social responsibility, resulting in the “lethal dose of strychnine” in the “glass of freshly squeezed juice.” You guys are so anxious to debate, you can’t have a civil dialogue about our differences. By definition, anger is not rational. At least be true to your half-truth.
Note: Reality is the only authority, if one can even call it that. Rand is the author of Objectivism and therefore is its authority. However, for Objectivism to be true and useful, it must follow reality. Rand would be the first to agree — as I bet you will, in an attempt to defend the bible.
In any case, further conversation is futile.
As *you* stated in your first reply: “Debate: no”.
Rhodes Scholar, billionaire and legendary “dean of global investing” Sir John Templeton told me: “My advice to a school of business management is to teach the manager to give unlimited love and he or she will be more successful,” or be client-focused. Rand’s “selfishness is a virtue” morphed into “shareholder maximization,” which Jack Welch just termed the “dumbest idea ever.” John even wrote a book entitled Agape Love, or unconditional love. Read it, as I read Selfishness. Then we can chat.
Danger: Thinking Christian!? Yes, I am free to determine truth by scripture, tradition, reason and experience. “Ayn says” isn’t adequate when thirty years on the Street do not confirm “man is a noble being” or “the moral purpose of my life is productive achievement.” Unlike you, I am free to learn from and quote Solomon as well as Rand. She must be crushed that you remind me of my fundamentalist friends who can’t breathe w/o a Bible verse. Think for yourself! Live for others as yourself!
Your digression into personal examples is telling. You reveal why you have chosen idol worship of that which — by definition — can’t be proved.
Note to other commenters (on YouTube or otherwise) who disagree:
This person is only interested in preaching to the choir (figuratively and literally), not debate. He believes he has already found truth and has willfully turned off the part of ones mind responsible for questioning ones own beliefs. Leaving only a shallow pit filled with bible quotes.
“O.ism got unconditional love?”
Whoever claims “*unconditional* love” of Objectivism is not an Objectivist. If that were a pre-requisite of the philosophy, Rand would have only to make a claim and not go to the lengths that she did to try to prove it.
I do however know some other “philosophies” that require such unconditional adherence and allegiance.
Asdaqwe: “Debate” no. Dialogue yes. Even Solomon “studied proverbs and honestly tested their truth” (Ecc. 12:9). I intended to inform Christians about O.ism from our worldview, not irritate O.ists. But dying depressed and lonely, as Rand did, doesn’t appeal. Nor did O.ism serve Mike Milken. My dad was a Hank Reardon, distanced from his family by work. My mentor a Howard Rourke, brilliant but also distant. My wife a Dagney, loving but unable to sit a spell. O.ism got unconditional love?
Thank you Phyllis. Yes, morality abhors a vacuum too! Christianity abandoned the field of economic morality, focusing exclusively on sexual morality, and Rand filled it. Don’t really blame the Objectivists as much as us. As you can see from the responses, at least they’re passionate and knowledgable about the subject! They may get it wrong but at least they get the fact that love or money will make the world go round.
Garmoco: Are you open to the possibility that you could be wrong about your belief in god/christianity and your criticisms of the philosophy of Objectivism?
If your answer, deep down, to either of these questions is “no”, then debate is futile. You are only interested in preaching, not learning.
If yes, what evidence or argument would it take for you to change your mind?
America had many, many currencies over the years. But Rand didn’t make any of them the symbol of her religion or have a symbol of them at the head of her casket. Take an objective, scientific look at your dollar, the one Rand reverenced, and you’ll see the words “Federal Reserve Note.”
Tito: I can see why Rand and Branden despised humility. Wow. So reality came into existence with Rand during this century? Gosh, and I wasted all that time studying Greco-Roman history, as your friend Grants suggested. So the Founding Fathers were wrong that we had certain inalienable rights before Rand handed them down?
Greenspan’s writings are in the lexicon because they are in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal which is a collection of essays put together by Rand under her own supervision during her lifetime. And there is nothing in those essays that Greenspan then wrote that is contradictory towards O.ism. They are O.ist principles applied to the field of economics. It is obvious from G.span’s history at the Fed that he has distanced himself from O.ism and his own writings in those essays.
The bible contains not a single connection between idea and reality. It is not on the same grounds as any secular philosophic textbook because it assumes the reader will accept anything written inside it on faith - without proof or appeal to logic - excluding it from rational debate.
Even if in the bible, Jesus said the same things as Ayn Rand, it would not make it valid. Rand’s philosophy is unique in that it is scientific, tied to reality.
From this, Rand proved that man has certain rights
Please tell me you’re kidding. The Fed was only established in 1913. Do you believe the Dollar is only 96 years old? Obviously not. Americans have been trading with Dollars (originally backed by gold) for centuries. Please do some research. Then MAYBE I’ll continue this discussion.
I can understand Objectivists now running from Greenspan. Yet the Ayn Rand Lexicon included his writings. Leornard Piekoff, with whom I’ve enjoyed chatting, wrote the introduction for Harry Binswanger, the associate of Rand who edited it. Apparently, they had not yet grown to think of Greenspan the way you do. But of course, the human mind is prone remember the past to its own advantage. That’s why you Objectivists now imitate we Christians who wrote our beliefs down millennia ago! Just kidding!
Tito: Our Bible contains the Wisdom literature. Jesus said to love with heart, soul and MIND. We do not reject the mind. We simply know there is evil genius and the human mind is quite limited, as PhD’s prove daily on Wall Street. But thanks for being reasonable rather than angry toward me. Rand would approve. And as I said in the video, she had a couple things right (glass of freshly squeezed juice), as Karl Marx did. I simply do not believe giving an even break is impoverishing to markets.
Finally, an intelligent response. Yet my mentor Sir John Templeton, a Rhodes Scholar and dean of global investing about whom I wrote two books, was a member of the Mount Pelerin Society. Yet he had no objection to my contrasting his worldview with that of Rand. John knew the central question is whether selfishness is a virtue or vice. My books cite Rand’s shipwreck from the Virtue of Selfishness as I cannot believe our soldiers and firemen in the Trade Center were immoral as they sacrificed.
Let me quote Rand herself, from The Meaning of Money: “To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history; a country of money-and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America.” You should read her. And she chose the dollar sign as the symbol of her reverence. How will objectivists worship the dollar if the Fed doesn’t print them?
Last response to grantsinmypants2: You gotta get a job, as Rand directed! But thank you for validating my point about O being the biggest threat to Christianity ever. Most Christian leaders have considered Rand a lightweight, as Bill ‘Buckley did, but perhaps they’ll now pay attention as, apparently, when people don’t believe the Truth of Christianity, they’ll fall for anything. And I bet there will be dollars in Objectivist heaven as Rand will insist on it!