Life imitating art? Part 2

[ccbatson]

Well, upon reflection, it is again eerie to draw parallels between our current state of affairs under the Obama administration and the progressive decline of the fictional collectivist society represented in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". Industries being forced into slavery, or taken over outright [[nationalized) and the castigation, by the state, of individual liberty and its' expression wherever it appears. Pretend capitalists [[second handers) replacing true individualist/capitalists and failing miserably in the attempt.

So, where are we heading in this context? Is Atlas going to shrug? Is he already? Will we start over like a Phoenix rising from the ashes [[as in John Galt's utopian capitalist enclave coming out of hiding)...vis a vis a landslide political reversal towards conservatism in 2010 and 2012? Could this painful process have been avoided, or was it inevitable at some point [[and when was that tipping point)? Will conservatives of the recent past find themselves in the position of Dagney Taggert, desperately trying in vain to save that which can't be saved?

[rb336]

you love your absurdist fiction, don't you bats?

[ccbatson]

Circumstances have changed and progressed dramatically for the worse along this continuum. Or hadn't you noticed?

[ccbatson]

Unemployment at 9.4%, 2 trillion in annual debt, hyperinflation on its' way....yep, nothing to see here.

[rb336]

Unemployment at 9.4%, 2 trillion in annual debt, hyperinflation on its' way....yep, nothing to see here.

all due to the collapse of an unchecked market in hedge funds, credit default swaps, etc., brought about by psycho market fundamentalists

[ccbatson]

I was here, you chose to ignore me when I was critical of Bush's spending [[many, many times).

Hyperinflation? keep an eye on the interest rates, then energy prices, the rest follow like dominos.

[Detroitej72]

all due to the collapse of an unchecked market in hedge funds, credit default swaps, etc., brought about by psycho market fundamentalists

Once again right wingers fail to acknowledge that their beloved system caused this crisis.

Wake up people.

[Lorax]

Ayn Rand was a fascist. People who believe such batcrap are also fascists. Period.

[Jimaz]

Embarrassing the right wing, one post at a time, relentlessly. Priceless.

[ccbatson]

Credit defaults/derivative/subprime loans...all the Frankenstein monster built by liberals.

Rand fascist? A more absurd and incorrect allegation has never been uttered.

[rb336]

Credit defaults/derivative/subprime loans...all the Frankenstein monster built by liberals.

no, all definitively the children of the Chicago School/ market fundamentalists /deregulation pushers of the right

[Lorax]

Credit defaults/derivative/subprime loans...all the Frankenstein monster built by liberals.

Rand fascist? A more absurd and incorrect allegation has never been uttered.

Wrong again, these financial mechanisms were created and promoted by fascist neocons. No regulation or rules, just endless gambling with people's pension funds, retirement accounts, etc. Brought to you courtesy of the right wingnuts on crack:

Phill Gramm
Carl Lindner
Richard Mellon Scaife
George Tush
Dick Cheney
The Saudi Royal Family
Carlyle Group
All major US Banks
Neal Bush
John McCain
Charles Keating
Kenneth Lay...dead
Knute GinGrinch
Tom Delay
Mitt Romney
Henry Paulson
Hedge Funds created by Republicans


and dozens more too numerous to mention, though a good bug spray would help.

Oh, and Ayn Rand was a fascist in reality, though like most shape-shifting repugnicans, they love to role play as it suits them. Just look at the Bush Crime Family- "compassionate conservatives".....yeah, right.

[ccbatson]

Lorax...I have made the argument for the true origins of the debacle by the left too many times to reiterate [[without so much as an iota of effective counter argument).

You don't know what Fascism, or objectivism is, so how can you profess to label Ayn Rand as fascist?

[rb336]

Lorax...I have made the argument for the true origins of the debacle by the left too many times to reiterate [[without so much as an iota of effective counter argument).

You don't know what Fascism, or objectivism is, so how can you profess to label Ayn Rand as fascist?

1) your arguments have been thoroughly rebuffed by several of us with links to CONSERVATIVE economists who debunk your claims

2) your notion of fascism has been debunked by numerous references and links to the definitive definition of fascism from the very people who created it.

Rand was not a corporatist or a fascist [[synonymous terms according to those who invented fascism) any more than Karl Marx was a Marxist. the followers of their writings, however, are another story

[ccbatson]

1. Consensus with bias and duress is not fact [[or science)...and you should know that.

And then you go on to agree with what I just said Rb...why not just respond with the correct answer in the first place?

[Lorax]

Lorax...I have made the argument for the true origins of the debacle by the left too many times to reiterate [[without so much as an iota of effective counter argument).

You don't know what Fascism, or objectivism is, so how can you profess to label Ayn Rand as fascist?

Because unlike you, I have actually read Rand's writings.

Any other conclusion than her being a closeted fascist would be intellectually dishonest.

The problem with everyone on the right, is they can so easily slip in and out of their role playing fantasies, acting much like right wing shape shifters. Whatever label they fancy to fit their belief system around the issue of the moment serves them well.

Problem is, it's not only intellectually dishonest, but psychopathic as well.

Case in point, Brush Lintball today said the 88 year old right wing freak job who shot up the Holocaust Museum two days ago was really a liberal.

He went on to say that Obama's people were thrilled to have this happen to use it as an excuse to further denigrate the right wing- "kick them while they're down" in so many words.

While that may be an incidental pleasure, it certainly wasn't policy in the White House to endorse such activity, which Lintball was implying.

More shape shifting from the Grand Poobah of the Repugnican Reich.

Tush/Cheney/Blair did this with the shape-shifting reasoning for going into Iraq, every reason under the sun except the truth.

[rb336]

1. Consensus with bias and duress is not fact [[or science)...and you should know that.

And then you go on to agree with what I just said Rb...why not just respond with the correct answer in the first place?

1) consensus is a huge part of science, and you keep claiming, with absolutely zero evidence, that it is coerced or biased in GW [[while continuing to promote things that were clearly funded by the fossil fuel industry as not being biased) . are you now saying all those conservative economists were coerced into making statements contradictory to your dogma?

2) I agreed to something that has no relation to your #1, so it is not in any way contradictory

[oladub]

Lorax, Unlike you, I have not extensively read Ayn Rand except for the first 95% of Atlas Shrugged many years ago. Maybe you could explain how Ayn Rand is a 'fascist'. Her heroes in Atlas Shrugged included an inventor, Hank Reardon, who owned a corporation derived from his invention a la Ford, or Gates. However, his opposition was composed of his corporate competitors and their government bureaucrat allies who colluded to promote their own respective interests. I understand those action as corporatism [[economic fascism); the primary building block and central part of 'fascism'. That would make Hank Reardon's opponents the corporatists - not Hank Reardon. It was sort of like when our government colluded with huge banks and dumped hundreds of billions of dollars on them instead of allowing their honest competitors to pick up the pieces. Bush and senators [[ahem) who supported this legislation acted as corporatists. I digress.

Anyway, in light of the corporatist [[economic fascist) activities perpetrated by Hank Reardon's enemies against him, how do you arrive at the conclusion that Hank Reardon was the 'fascist' rather than his enemies based on your reading Ayn Rand?

[rb336]

[quote=oladub;31484]Lorax, Unlike you, I have not extensively read Ayn Rand except for the first 95% of Atlas Shrugged many years ago. Maybe you could explain how Ayn Rand is a 'fascist'. Her heroes in Atlas Shrugged included an inventor, Hank Reardon, who owned a corporation derived from his invention a la Ford [quote]

of course, Ford was fairly supportive of the fascists, as were IBM, GM, GE and other US companies and captalists too numerous to count

[ccbatson]

There we go Rb...the key flaw in your logic...consensus has no part in determining fact, or science. If you don't understand this, you are utterly unfamiliar with objectivism as a subject...or utterly incapable of comprehending it.

The Chicago school had nothing to do with subprimes and derivatives other than to cope with the liberal mess that they were forced to deal with.

[Lorax]

Lorax, Unlike you, I have not extensively read Ayn Rand except for the first 95% of Atlas Shrugged many years ago. Maybe you could explain how Ayn Rand is a 'fascist'. Her heroes in Atlas Shrugged included an inventor, Hank Reardon, who owned a corporation derived from his invention a la Ford, or Gates. However, his opposition was composed of his corporate competitors and their government bureaucrat allies who colluded to promote their own respective interests. I understand those action as corporatism [[economic fascism); the primary building block and central part of 'fascism'. That would make Hank Reardon's opponents the corporatists - not Hank Reardon. It was sort of like when our government colluded with huge banks and dumped hundreds of billions of dollars on them instead of allowing their honest competitors to pick up the pieces. Bush and senators [[ahem) who supported this legislation acted as corporatists. I digress.

Anyway, in light of the corporatist [[economic fascist) activities perpetrated by Hank Reardon's enemies against him, how do you arrive at the conclusion that Hank Reardon was the 'fascist' rather than his enemies based on your reading Ayn Rand?

I never said Reardon was the fascist, I said Ayn Rand was the fascist. She ended up showing her true colors, as all shape shifting republicans do. It has been a while since I read her, but my conclusion was this derivative of fascism/republicanism known as libertarianism is yet another attempt to hide the most aggregious dogma of the 'faith' in favor of some variation on the theme.

This is the problem with the right in general.

Lefties are real, dull, and earnest.

Rightwingers are conflicted as to the fringe of their society, and end up being labeled moderate, or even center-right republicans.

Libertarians are no different than most center-right republicans, with the big difference of wanting pot legalized, and the removal of moral and legal consequences for sleeping with underage girls.

And that came from a life-long libertarian, not me.

[oladub]

No, you never said that Reardon was a fascist but you presented yourself as knowing something about what Ayn Rand wrote. I was hoping that you would shine some light on who the fascists were in Atlas Shrugged and why they were fascists but you didn't.

Stranger than your take on Ayn Rand is your take on libertarianism. Libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism rather than liberalism. At least you have inferred where you are comfortable on the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum. The most libertarian presidential candidate in the last election was Mike Gravel, a Democrat. I wouldn't call him a fascist.
Why Democrats kicked Gravel out of their debates

[Stosh]

Here's my take on Reardon. These days he'd be an innovator in alternative energy. And he's being squashed by the powers that be that have a vested interest in the continuation of the status quo... namely the Republican party, the Ms. Moose in Alaska, and the oil oligarchy in the Middle East.

Also being squashed by people like CC, Luddites of energy. You considering yourself a producer is laughable.

How's THAT for a freakish parallel, Rand-bot?

[oladub]

Here's my take on Reardon. These days he'd be an innovator in alternative energy. And he's being squashed by the powers that be that have a vested interest in the continuation of the status quo... namely the Republican party, the Ms. Moose in Alaska, and the oil oligarchy in the Middle East.

Also being squashed by people like CC, Luddites of energy. You considering yourself a producer is laughable.

How's THAT for a freakish parallel, Rand-bot?

Not sure who you are addressing that considered themselves a producer. Leaving that note of strangeness aside, I did like your take on Reardon being an innovator in alternative energy although I would extend my criticisms to politicians who subsidize clean coal, drilling oil, and ethanol production whatever their political pursuasion.

[jams]

The Chicago school had nothing to do with subprimes and derivatives other than to cope with the liberal mess that they were forced to deal with.

Economics, nor history, is really not your strong suit, is it?

Most of what is currently taught to potential MBAs in this country and others is basically Chicago school due to its its dogma of conversion through better grades, despite the flaws.. You, yourself, parrot the lines.

My neighbor and I chuckle about how the expert economists have suddenly discovered that he working class are consumers.